Tributes: Lord Weatherill

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is with great regret that I have to inform the House of the death of Lord Weatherill on 6 May. On behalf of the whole House I extend our condolences to his family and friends.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I rise to pay tribute to Lord Weatherill. Bruce Bernard Weatherill, known to all as Jack, made his mark on public life as Speaker of the House of Commons. He reached a far wider audience than his predecessors because his tenure as Speaker from 1983 to 1992 coincided with the introduction of television cameras to the Commons Chamber. He became known to millions for his interventions during Prime Minister's Questions. In Parliament he was known for his belief in making government accountable and in making Parliament matter.
	Lord Weatherill was born in Guildford. His father owned a Savile Row tailoring business and it was into this trade that he was apprenticed aged 17 after completing his education at Malvern College. He remained involved in the family business throughout his life. Commissioned in 1940, he served as a Bengal Lancer during the Second World War. He referred to this period as "formative years" and many of his experiences clearly had a lifelong impact. He was proficient in Urdu, became vegetarian after seeing famine in Bengal and practised meditation. He maintained an interest in the region throughout his life. Noble Lords may recall his interventions in this House on the subjects of the Kashmir earthquake and the readmission of Pakistan to the Commonwealth.
	After the war he focused on the family business. In 1964 he won election as the Conservative candidate for the seat of Croydon North-East. He retained his seat until 1992, standing as in independent candidate in 1987 after he had become Speaker of the House of Commons. He served as a Whip in opposition and, in government, as Deputy Chief Whip. He was elected as the 154th Speaker of the House of Commons in 1983. His years of service were marked by a desire to encourage the free flow of debate and the expression of all opinions. He championed the role of Back-Benchers and his tenure as Speaker was sometimes an uncomfortable period for the Government of the day.
	Lord Weatherill also made a significant contribution to this House. He was raised to the peerage in 1992 and from 1995 to 1999 served as Convenor of the Cross Benches. From the beginning he commanded tremendous respect from all sides of the House. He was a Convenor at a critical time in the development of the role of the Cross Benches and was always helpful and absolutely fair in his dealings, ensuring that the interests of the Cross Benches were well represented in the usual channels.
	Lord Weatherill was always modest about the role he played during the passage of the House of Lords reform Act of 1999, but this House will not forget it. It was in large part due to him that an agreement was reached which allowed the Bill to pass. He used his skills to considerable effect at what was an extremely challenging time for this House.
	It is difficult to do justice to a life characterised by such a broad range of interests and experiences. Lord Weatherill will be remembered as a remarkable man; respected by all and missed by many. He is survived by his wife Lyn, their three children and seven grandchildren. I am sure that all sides of the House will wish to join me in sending our condolences to Lord Weatherill's family and friends.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the Leader of the House in everything that she said about the late Lord Weatherill, whose death has saddened the whole House. We on this side, who were proud that he was a Conservative, deeply share her expressions of sympathy for Lady Weatherill and the family. They have lost much, but they will know that they were also given much, as was every one of us.
	Jack Weatherill was a rare figure; someone who had, as Speaker of the Commons, been for millions the embodiment of that House but who, in coming here and being chosen as Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers at such a critical time in their history, became part of the fabric of this House also. Those of us who saw him well into his 80s, with that crisp, swift, upright walk along the corridors, could have had no doubt that he was a military man in younger days—a cavalryman, indeed, who saw service in India and retained not only his love of horses from those days but some of his habits of life; his vegetarianism, for example, and his practice of meditation. As a horseman, it was apt that he personally sewed the riding breeches used by the king and queen at the Trooping, and it was no accident that the Royal Warrant was given to his firm.
	It is as a true parliamentarian—someone concerned for, and about, the standing of Parliament inside and outside these walls and for his great and dedicated service to Parliament—that Lord Weatherill will be remembered. It has been widely commented that he was the Speaker who encouraged, over the heads of many doubters, the introduction of television to the other place—a House, incidentally, that was so much more reluctant to innovate than this House was at the time. That introduction was to the good of Parliament, as was so much that he did. He was rough only with Ministers who preferred the "Today" studio to the House for their announcements. One of today's obituaries calls him, rightly, a great Speaker. He was famously independent, not always to the delight of the Government, but he won the trust and affection of all Members; his ready wit and light humour were always there to defuse any situation that might risk getting out of hand. He opened up the Speaker's House to all Members and to their families, and he took pride in the fact that at least once in every Parliament an MP and his wife would have been to dine.
	When Lord Weatherill came to this House, he was Convenor of the Cross Benches at a time when a government Bill threatened the removal of 226 Cross-Bench Peers, nearly two-thirds of the then strength of those Benches, which are so vital to the character of this House. As the noble Baroness has outlined, Lord Weatherill played a major role in the compromise that led to the eventual House of Lords Act, moving the Weatherill amendment that shaped that legislation and saw the present House created with massive majorities in both Houses. Out of conflict he helped bring compromise and a House whose performance and independence since 1999 should surely have gladdened him who helped to mould it so much.
	For all his great offices and achievements, Jack Weatherill always retained a great humility, symbolised by the famous thimble that he carried to remind him of his origins. For his epitaph, he wanted simply this: that he always kept his word. That he did; and with that word he kept a trust, a faith and a dignity that all of us who knew him will sorely miss.

Lord McNally: My Lords, since the Lord President and the Leader of the Opposition have not mentioned it, I start my tribute with the story that Lord Weatherill told so often against himself. He used to say that when he was elected in 1964 as a young Conservative Back-Bencher, he found himself in the gents' toilets down the other end of the Corridor and heard two of the Conservative knights of the shire talking. One said to the other, "I think this place is going to the dogs. My tailor is in here now". He loved to tell that story.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has said, it would be difficult not to see Lord Weatherill as both a tailor and a solider: dapper, crisp and well dressed. He was a skilled Deputy Chief Whip. Indeed, he has one of the few battle honours that any Opposition Whip could have: he brought down a Government, as the pairing Whip during the 1979 Government. As has been said, he was a respected chairman of Ways and Means, and an even more respected Speaker—our first TV Speaker. The fact that he was able to move from a background as a Whip to Convenor of the Cross Benches is also a clue to his character. He had a personal integrity that allowed him to be at certain times partisan and at other times absolutely neutral. I once attended a dinner at the Pakistan High Commission when he was there, and was impressed by his affection for and deep knowledge of the subcontinent.
	I was never in favour of the Weatherill amendment, but admired the skill with which he played poker with the Government of the day. They blinked first. Apart from the epitaph given him by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, it can truly be said of him, "If you seek his memorial, look about you".
	Lord Weatherill was a parliamentarian who had affection and respect at both ends of the Corridor. We on these Benches share the sense of loss that his family must feel at this moment, and send them our deep condolences.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, the death of Bernard Weatherill—always Jack Weatherill to his friends here—is a sad occasion for the whole House. I express my sympathy, as others have, to Lyn and his children.
	Today is a particularly sad day for the Cross-Benchers, because Jack Weatherill was a most distinguished and respected member of the Cross-Bench group. Here in Parliament we think of him as a remarkable parliamentarian, embodying for me the spirit of our democratic Parliament; as a Member of the House of Commons, one of the most distinguished Speakers and a national figure in that office; and as a real star in this House. We on the Cross Benches also like to remember how he was always willing to share his knowledge and experience. He was invariably helpful, often humorous and a source of much wisdom.
	I had many contacts with Jack Weatherill myself, in particular because he was one of my predecessors as Convenor of the Cross Benches, from 1995 to 1999. He was a true independent Member and an independent spirit here, as we saw with his role in the last reform of the membership of the House. I learned a lot from him, and can honestly say that I never once failed to enjoy our meetings and discussions. He gave of his experience not only in this House but also more widely, in the organisations and charities that he supported. I particularly remember the Industry and Parliament Trust which he chaired for nine years and supported very effectively, reflecting both his affection for Parliament and his links with commerce and industry—particularly small businesses, since he was not only a great parliamentarian but also, from experience before he entered politics, the best tailor in the House. His interests extended far beyond our shores. He held office in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for many years and had lots of contacts with Parliament, Government and people, particularly in the Indian subcontinent and other countries with close links to the United Kingdom. We shall miss Jack Weatherill very deeply. Parliament has lost a great servant.

The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I add our condolences to those of other noble Lords who have spoken. We have the title "Lords Spiritual", but Jack Weatherill was one of the Lords Spiritual in reality. We have heard about the integrity of his life and the thimble of humility; he was a genuinely spiritual person. In addition to the services to Parliament, about which Peers with better right to speak have referred, he cared for the coherence of the whole of society. I think of his work on the Speaker's Commission on Citizenship, for example, which gave birth to the Institute of Citizenship Studies.
	He saw his own contribution to the story in the light of the continuous story of the generations. He looked back to some of the great Speakers of the past; he located himself in a continuing story and saw himself as making a contribution to something in which we all have a share. The Speakership was almost a perfect expression of his gifts.
	He was conspicuously fair and inclusive. It was typical of Lord Weatherill that he was the patron of the Three Faiths Forum, and its members were all keen to share him as their own. I remember vividly him describing the first time that he was under fire, not politically but in that period to which the Lord President has referred—the Second World War. He was in a vehicle, the bullets were buzzing around him and it was being driven by a Sikh. The Sikh turned round to him and said, "Put your trust in God, sahib, he's a very reliable fella". So we believe, but so, more importantly, Jack Weatherill lived.

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, my first encounter with Jack Weatherill was when he was chairman of Ways and Means in the other place. I had just been made a chairman of a Standing Committee there. I was very wet behind the ears. My first big committee meeting was a housing committee. At a Division, I thought that all the Members were there, I called for the doors to be locked and for the Division to take place. I had locked out the Opposition Whip and the Opposition Front Bench Member dealing with the Bill. A hullabaloo broke out. It was a Thursday morning and I spent a terrible weekend because I knew that I was being reported to the chairman of Ways and Means, whom I did not really know. On Monday morning, I went into Jack Weatherill's office to see him and confess all, believing that my days of chairmanship were well and truly over. I opened the door and he came in and said, "come along, Betty, come and sit down. I don't care what you've done, but I am totally in support of you. I am on your side". Throughout the years that I worked with Jack Weatherill, that was his attitude to all those who worked with him. He was totally loyal, committed and supportive. He was my dear friend and mentor. I shall miss him very much indeed.

Europe Day

Lord Dykes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to celebrate Europe Day this year.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, as is usual on Europe Day, the flags of all 27 EU member states and the European Union flag will be flown in Parliament Square. The Minister for Europe will be visiting a comprehensive school in west London tomorrow to mark Europe Day, with pupils involved in the German presidency's "Ambassadors in Schools" initiative. This will also enable him to promote the year-long "Learning Together" initiative which was launched in March as part of the 50th anniversary of the EU. This school partnership project is one of a range of activities that helps to raise awareness and debate on EU issues.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. At least the flags are flying in Parliament Square today and tomorrow, but are not the Government being characteristically shy and modest about the European Union? After 34 years of membership, could we not have celebrations up and down the country instead of just one school visit in London?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, we believe that Europe Day is an extremely important opportunity to raise awareness about the European Union and the importance of our membership of it, but every day is an important occasion on which to raise awareness of the European Union and we celebrate that.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, would not a good way of celebrating Europe Day be to announce a referendum on the slimmed-down European constitution, so that, amid all the scheming, the British public will have a say in the matter?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, there is absolutely no scheming. As the noble Lord well knows, these issues will be discussed and debated at the European Council in June.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, in addition to celebrating Europe Day, will the Government give a little more thought to how we celebrate Commonwealth Day alongside it? The two need not be rivals. Although we have the Commonwealth Day service in Westminster Abbey, there seems to be a lack of enthusiasm about distributing information about the Commonwealth to schools. This country's place in the Commonwealth network is vital for our future position and prosperity, so will the Minister urge her colleagues and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to give far more emphasis to the future importance of the Commonwealth, which contains some of the richest and most advanced countries in the world and whose development is crucial to the stability of the whole planet?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I fully agree with many of the noble Lord's comments. It is entirely proper that we raise awareness about the Commonwealth. I draw the House's attention to the "Global Gateway", a government initiative for schools. I believe that that website refers to aspects of the Commonwealth, although I will check that. That is a good way of making the Commonwealth much more visible to the children of this nation.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that the European Union does not constitute the whole of Europe and that therefore "Europe Day" is a misnomer. As the Government's policy is now to promote Britishness, does she agree that perhaps we should have a British Day, even though it might be called St George's Day?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, in factual terms the noble Lord is correct. The continent of Europe is wider than the European Union, although, thankfully, the European Union keeps growing, but we all know the shorthand behind Europe Day. As regards 23 April, it is indeed St George's Day, and people celebrate it as they wish, just as they celebrate Europe Day as they wish.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, the greatest leaps forward in Europe—the accession to the Rome treaty, the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty—were all achieved by Conservative Administrations, although without referendums being called. What do the present Administration see as their greatest achievement in their 10 years in power?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, our greatest achievement is perhaps in ensuring that the European Union focuses its attention on practical issues that are important to the daily lives of the people of this country. I am talking about issues such as climate change and the environment, which we have to address in this 21st century but which we cannot address alone; we have to work on them in partnership with our European colleagues.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, if Her Majesty's Government really wish to raise awareness and increase debate about our membership of the European Union, would it not be more appropriate for them, rather than having a visit to some comprehensive school in west London or whatever the Minister said the celebrations were to be, to commission and release for debate a genuinely independent cost-benefit analysis of all aspects of our membership of the European Union? Might the Government not then discover whether the 68 per cent, at the latest count, of the British people who wish to reduce our relationship with the European Union to one of free trade with the single market are right?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I referred not to just some comprehensive school but to a particular school in London which we are very pleased is a part of the Comenius project. I very much hope that schools such as Eton are also a part of these projects but I do not have those facts at my fingertips. As for a cost-benefit analysis, although I know what the noble Lord is referring to, many such studies are already available in this country. The Government firmly believe that the costs of the European Union are far outweighed by the benefits to the people of this country.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the less than 1 per cent of total UK expenditure which is the cost of our membership of the European Union represents some of the best value for money that this country has ever had? That was recognised by the last Government; it will continue to be the case under this Government and even further under future Governments of this country. To do anything other would be an act of isolationism which would damage every interest that we hold important.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I fully agree with my noble friend. It is another of the Government's achievements. In 1997, when we became a Government, we were totally isolated in the European Union; now, we are not isolated. We are part of the mainstream, and I am glad about that.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, on this auspicious day when the shared devolved Government of Northern Ireland take their position at Stormont, does the Minister agree that one of the substantial contributions to that great achievement was the Irish Republic's remarkable economic growth under the European Union? It is one of the outstanding achievements of that Union.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right, and I know that the view she expresses is shared by many politicians in Northern Ireland.

EU: National Vetoes

Lord Waddington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether in negotiations within the European Union they propose to agree to a reduction in the number of policy areas covered by national vetoes.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the draft constitutional treaty provided for an extension of qualified majority voting in some areas. However, there is at present no consensus among EU partners on the way forward regarding the constitutional treaty, or any new treaty. These issues will be discussed at the European Council in June. Her Majesty's Government have always taken the view that QMV can deliver practical benefit in some areas, but as in all things we will consider what is in the national interest.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, as ever I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, but did the Prime Minister not talk much about red lines that he would not cross prior to negotiations on the European constitution? Admittedly, he did not pay much attention to them in the event, but are we not entitled to know what his red lines are this time? In how many areas where we now have the veto is he prepared to sign away the rights of this Parliament without consulting the people?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government are considering all those issues and how best they may negotiate on them at the Council in June to ensure that any agreement made is, indeed, in the best interests of this country. The Government are not prepared to conduct those negotiations in public.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the British Government are rarely in the minority on qualified majority votes in the European Union, and that our national interests are much more often damaged in votes by unanimity where one or two Governments block a decision that would clearly be in Britain's interest? Therefore, like Mrs Thatcher's Government on the Single European Act, the current Government would be in line with the extension of Britain's national interest by accepting some further extension of qualified majority voting.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the noble Lord is right: without the use of QMV, a single country could block the EU decision-making process. We have made recent progress in the services directive, for example, precisely because of QMV. That is extremely important, so this Government will undoubtedly seriously consider extending QMV, just as previous Conservative Governments did—including that of which the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was a member.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, has the Minister noticed the recent 14 April edition of the Economist, hardly a Euro-sceptic magazine, which stated that it was the biggest of all Euro myths that enlargement required more decision-making to be made by QMV? The Economist asked why, if that is the case, is there no logjam of legislation and why, as a recent study by Sciences Po University in Paris demonstrated, decision-making in the European Union is 25 per cent faster than it was before enlargement. If decision-making is so difficult, how has the European Union been able to agree a very important open-skies agreement with America, and a climate change agreement which Chancellor Merkel described as historic? Surely there is no real argument for what the Government are considering.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government are considering QMV because it was on the table under the German presidency. But many other issues are on the table, such as the size of the European Commission. QMV is just one of a series of issues on the table. The noble Lord is absolutely right to say that enlargement is progressing under the current system—or has progressed, we have Romania and Bulgaria now—and that the European Union is functioning well. However, it could function better. If there is to be further enlargement, steps must be taken, for example, to ensure that members of the European Commission are revised as per the Nice treaty.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, further to the penultimate question, what is the Government's strategy to reduce the 26 national vetoes held by other member states which, for instance, frustrate the establishment of the single European market and frustrate opportunities for British business to succeed therein?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, as with the other issues raised about QMV, the matter is being considered by the Government and discussed between the Government and their partners. We wait to see what developments will issue after the June European Council.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we are glad that the Government are considering all those matters; so they should be. Does not the Minister agree that Parliament would like to consider them as well? Could she therefore press her colleagues very hard to ensure that before proposals begin to take shape in concrete, which will be very soon—in fact, at the forthcoming summit on 21 June—the Parliament of this country and this House in particular has an opportunity to offer its views on how these matters should be resolved, because they will shape the future for all of us in a very important way?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the usual channels will indeed be discussing that but, as my noble friend Lord Triesman stated in the House the other day, after the European Council, there will be a Statement for debate in this House and the issue will be referred to the excellent European Committee chaired by a noble Lord in this House.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that the Government will retain the veto on taxation, defence, foreign affairs and justice and home affairs?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government are absolutely clear that we will retain the national veto in the areas of national interest—the areas that we believe to be in the national interest—such as tax, social security, defence and key areas of criminal procedural law.

Lord Teverson: My Lords—

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—

Lord Teverson: My Lords, is it not essential that QMV is introduced in the areas of agriculture and fisheries in particular? Otherwise, there is no chance of achieving a fundamental change in the common agricultural policy and abolishing the common fisheries policy and replacing it with something far more sensible?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, as I stated, the Government are considering all those issues very seriously to ensure that the European Union functions better in the national interest, but also in the interests of all the people of the European Union.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is time to move on.

Fair Trade

Lord Bilston: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to recognise and celebrate World Fair Trade Day on 12 May.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, the UK Government support the aims of the fair trade movement and recognise the enormous difference that fair trade can make to disadvantaged communities and its contribution to sustainable development. We have not been invited to become involved in World Fair Trade Day. However, the Government would like to congratulate the London Borough of Waltham Forest on recently receiving fair trade status, which is being celebrated at one of the UK events on 12 May.

Lord Bilston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that fair trade and trade justice are still the great hope of civilisation for the millions of people in impoverished countries who are seeking through such practices to bring themselves out of poverty and, by obtaining a fair price for their products and services, to challenge rich and prosperous countries to assist them? Will he use his good offices to encourage all government departments to embrace fair trade initiatives and practices and to mount an international campaign for fair trade by championing positive procurement policies to assist in this vital and majestic cause?

Lord Truscott: My Lords, first, I pay tribute to my noble friend's work in this area to ensure that a range of fair trade products are available in the Houses of Parliament, including your Lordships' House. I also thank him for his work in international development. I certainly agree with his sentiments about supporting people in developing countries. As he will know, between 2002 and 2007, DfID has given more than £1 million of support to the Fairtrade Foundation, and the UK is in the lead in the fair trade movement. It is very welcome that, between 2005 and 2006, UK fair trade sales increased by about 50 per cent with sales now estimated at about £300 million. That is benefiting 368 producer groups from Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia who are selling to the UK market. We would like to see that success replicated across the globe.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, a successful Doha round would go a long way towards creating fairer trade rules for the developing world. What recent representations has the Minister made to Peter Mandelson, the European Trade Commissioner, to ensure that European tariffs and farm subsidies will not continue to hold back the Doha trade round and reduce the export earnings of the developing countries to which the noble Lord referred?

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that my department and the Government are working closely with the European Commission to ensure that the Doha trade round is a success for the reason she outlined.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, further to that question, what concrete steps have been taken towards completion of the Doha round since substantive negotiations were resumed in February? Is the noble Lord aware of any proposals by the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to promote fair trade that will be tabled at the G8 summit at Heiligendamm?

Lord Truscott: My Lords, negotiations are ongoing and the agenda is still being established for the G8 in Germany. Rather than going into further detail, it would be better if I wrote to the noble Lord.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, having been involved in the issue as the chairman of a charity, I saw how direct marketing by people making panama hats in Ecuador enabled them to increase their income per hat from less than £1—I think it was about 50p—to many pounds. Can the Minister say what proportion of the money in fair trade goes directly to the producers and how much to operating the system?

Lord Truscott: My Lords, the fair trade standards are laid down to ensure that organisational, social and environmental criteria are met so that producers can be certified as fair trade producers. Smallholder co-operatives and other organisations must be instruments for the social and economic development of their members. Issues such as standards of employment and health are also incorporated in the standards. Price is a question of negotiation, but the system is such that the fair trade criteria establish a minimum guaranteed price for the producer that covers its costs of production and ensures a living wage for the workers and growers. That can vary, but obviously it is tailored to the particular needs of the producers.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the number of local councils around the country that have passed resolutions to become fair trade councils? Is it possible to collate these figures and to publish them as a means of encouraging people and raising awareness of the importance of fair trade at a local level?

Lord Truscott: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. I can tell your Lordships' House that, as of 23 February 2007, there were 262 UK fair trade towns, cities, boroughs, villages, zones and islands, and that 219 UK towns are working towards fair trade status. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the more we can do to publicise that and to encourage that example, the better.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the principles underlying fair trade should also apply to trade in this country? I am thinking particularly of the problems facing the farming industry, and I declare an interest as a farmer.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. Of course, we have regulatory authorities and competition authorities to ensure that that is the case.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, can we perhaps have a slightly less ambitious target and, instead of trying to change the whole world to fair trade, persuade the House of Lords to take fair trade bananas in the Bishops' Bar? I have been active on this several times but, so far, without success.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right that we should be looking at that, and I hope that the appropriate committee of the House is investigating it. I understand that we have been trying to purchase fair trade bananas for the Bishops' Bar and think that it should be looked at as a matter of urgency.

Afghanistan: Combat Vehicles

Lord Craig of Radley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there is a current shortage of combat vehicles in Afghanistan.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in extending our sincere condolences to the families and friends of Major Nick Bateson and Guardsman Simon Davison, who died last week in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively, and of Private Kevin Thompson, who died over the weekend of injuries received in Iraq. There is currently no shortage of combat vehicles in Afghanistan.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. There continue to be very disturbing media reports of shortages, quoting service personnel in theatre, including a report about combat vehicles, which prompted my Question. Another report yesterday, headed:
	"Army equipment cupboard is bare",
	suggests that,
	"Even troops preparing to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan will have at best a third"—
	only—
	"of the equipment they need".
	Does not this indicate a shortage of equipment overall for the forces undertaking the tasks that they have been set by this Government?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am aware of the press reports to which the noble and gallant Lord refers. I have carefully studied the data on the availability of combat vehicles in Afghanistan, and can confirm to the House that requests for combat vehicle equipment that come up through the chain of command from theatre have been met in all cases. Those in theatre do have the combat vehicles that they require to carry out operations. I had a conversation this morning with the Chief of the Defence Staff on this very subject, and he confirmed that to be the case.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that he saw the article to which the noble and gallant Lord referred? It is extremely damaging to morale, not least to that of the families of those who are going to serve in both these operational theatres. Will the Minister undertake to publish and put into the Library a full response from the Government to all the points made, not only about armoured vehicles but about the general issue of all the equipment referred to in the article, so that, if he is correct that there are no shortages, this matter can be officially confirmed? Otherwise, it is extremely damaging.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am happy to place in the Library the data that I can provide on the availability of our combat vehicles. I cannot be specific about each vehicle type because that would prejudice operations, but I can give data relating to the total number of combat vehicles, their availability and the trend thereof.

Lord Garden: My Lords, we on these Benches join in offering our condolences to the families of the three soldiers killed since we last met. The Minister will be aware that the reports in the press are drawn from the leaked document, Equipment Reverse—SITREP No. 2, which since the weekend has been in the public domain. It confirms what the Minister said—that the forces are well equipped on operations—but it spells out in detail the difficulty of sustaining that situation. The phrase it uses is "LAND's cupboard is bare": in other words, the cupboard of the headquarters of the Army's operations is bare. What changes is the Minister making, given his new responsibilities, to ensure that he can sustain the necessary spares, which are lacking; replace the equipment, which is wearing much faster than expected; and change the assumptions on attrition rates?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Garden, highlights exactly the points on which we need to focus. The level of operations with which we are now coping puts pressure on equipment and means that equipment priorities for operations have consequences for the availability of equipment at home base. Dealing with these issues is about investing in more equipment where required. We are addressing the availability of spares. More importantly, the reforms we are putting in place and the way we manage equipment—for example, the whole-fleet management of combat vehicles—is at the heart of improving the availability of vehicles both for operations and back at base. These reform initiatives, which we are putting in place as a result of investment and the proactive approach to reform that comes from bringing together defence equipment and defence support, are at the heart of these issues.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us whether these combat vehicles really are properly protected now?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, as I have said a number of times, there is no such thing as a perfect vehicle that will protect our troops against all threats. There is a balance between the mobility of the vehicle and the threats it comes up against. The key is for commanders to have a range of vehicles from which they can choose the most appropriate for the given mission. The measures that we have put in place to deliver to theatre a much greater range and number of vehicles give commanders what they need to do the job. There is no magic solution that will provide perfect protection for our troops. We need to recognise that.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I come back to the noble Lord's answer to my noble friend Lord King. Do I correctly understand that whereas the total number of vehicles is sufficient for need, the same cannot be said for each specific type?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, let me absolutely clear about this. We have the number we need of each type of vehicle. I can put in the public domain—and, therefore, in the Library—the total number of vehicles and their availability. I cannot break that down by individual vehicle type because our policy is not to put into the public domain the specific numbers of, for example, Viking, Snatch and Mastiff vehicles. That would give information to the enemy.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, at a convenient time after 4.30 pm, my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting will repeat a Statement on the Scottish Parliament elections.

Human Tissue and Embryos Bill (Draft): Joint Committee

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Commons message of 2 May be considered and that a committee of nine Lords members be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on any draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown and that the committee should report on the draft Bill by 25 July;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords members be appointed to the committee:
	B Deech,B Hollis of Heigham,L Jenkin of Roding,L Mackay of Clashfern,B Neuberger,Bp St Albans,L Selsdon,L Turnberg,L Winston;
	That the committee have power to agree with the committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
	That the quorum of the committee be two;
	And that the reports of the committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was sent to the Commons.

Legal Services Bill [HL]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: moved Amendment No. 334:
	After Clause 118, insert the following new Clause—
	"Board's functions in relation to complaints
	(1) If it appears to the Board that complaints about any authorised person are not being handled effectively and efficiently by the OLC, the Board may exercise in relation to the OLC such of the powers in subsection (2) as it considers necessary.
	(2) Those powers are—
	(a) to investigate the handling of complaints about authorised persons;(b) to make recommendations in relation to the handling of complaints about authorised persons; and(c) to require the OLC to submit to the Board a plan for the handling of complaints about authorised persons.
	(3) Where the Board requires the OLC to submit to it a plan for the handling of complaints about authorised persons but the OLC—
	(a) fails to submit to the Board a plan which it considers adequate for securing that such complaints are handled effectively and efficiently, or(b) submits to the Board such a plan but fails to handle complaints in accordance with it,the Board may give directions to the OLC."

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, the subject matter of the amendment was given consideration at an earlier stage of the Bill. As so often during that time, the noble Baroness expressed the view that the language of the Bill was already sufficient to ensure that the failure of the Office for Legal Complaints in the eyes of the Legal Services Board would not render a stalemate and that it would be possible to bring about changes. However, on further reflection, it has appeared to my noble friends that the position is not entirely satisfactory and that the Legal Services Board has no adequate powers to investigate the Office for Legal Complaints.
	There is no direct provision for the board to intervene if it believes that the Office for Legal Complaints is not handling complaints properly. The amendment would transfer to the Legal Services Board the current powers enjoyed by the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner. The powers would allow the board to look strategically at how the Office for Legal Complaints is operating and to intervene if it appears to the board that the OLC is not handling complaints efficiently and effectively. That would help to ensure that information on complaints can be used to improve the whole system of legal services delivery for consumers. It seems clear that if the OLC fails to deliver an efficient and effective service, appropriate sanctions should be available.
	Even at this stage of consideration of the Bill—it has been thoroughly trawled—it is not entirely obvious who would deal with the OLC and how. Clause 118 allows the Legal Services Board to set performance targets for and to monitor the OLC, which is welcome. But there are no further direct powers over the OLC, particularly in the event of its failure, other than the power and ability to remove the OLC chair and board, which might be thought to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The inclusion of the power to investigate concerns would allow for sensible and reasonable target setting if this became necessary. It is also desirable to consider how to stiffen the Legal Services Board's ability to ensure the OLC's compliance with its directions. I hope that these amendments will commend themselves at this stage to the Government. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord who, as he has indicated, returns to an issue that we debated in Committee. The amendments would produce a hybrid between the present Legal Services Complaints Commissioner and the proposal in the Bill in relation to the LSB and the improved regulators. Having looked again at the provisions in the Bill, as I said I would do, I believe that we have satisfactory arrangements to make sure that the board has the appropriate range of controls over the OLC.
	I will demonstrate this in six key ways. First are the overall arrangements in Part 6 which provide for the OLC to operate through a series of rules which, in Clause 152, must receive the consent of the LSB before they can take effect. The LSB will have complete oversight of the way in which the OLC's rules are framed and, provided they are adhered to, how the OLC operates. Additionally, in Clause 153, the board may amend or modify any of those rules if it considers that they are deficient.
	Secondly, in Clause 115, the OLC is accountable through its annual report to the LSB, which must deal with any matter that the board has directed. For example, they may have to show how they have dealt with the speed with which complaints are resolved. Of course, the OLC has a separate annual report to the LSB because it has a distinct function and its status is as a distinct non-departmental public body. The LSB will present both its annual report and the OLC's annual report to the Secretary of State, who will lay them before Parliament. This will reflect the fact that the OLC reports to the LSB.
	Thirdly, Clause 117 allows the board to require the Office for Legal Complaints to prepare a report on any matter relating to its functions. This might include, for example, a strategic plan for how it proposes to remedy a particular failure to meet a performance target. Fourthly, the power to set performance targets in Clause 118 allows the board to impose conditions on how those targets are met and, crucially, to monitor performance against targets. This will allow the LSB to monitor systematically how complaints are being handled.
	Fifthly, the LSB's ultimate power in relation to the Office for Legal Complaints is at Schedule 15(8)(b). As the noble Lord has said, this allows the board the power to remove members of the OLC. The noble Lord described this as, perhaps, a "sledgehammer to crack a nut", but it is important as the ultimate power, only to be used on members of the OLC where there is obviously a significant failure in the discharge of their duties. Finally, in addition to the above statutory powers, as a non-departmental public body, the Office for Legal Complaints will be accountable to Parliament for the efficient use of resources and the discharge of its statutory responsibilities in a way that the current complaints-handling and regulatory bodies are not.
	We consider that, taken together, these six key points provide an appropriate and effective control over the Office for Legal Complaints and the way it operates, intentionally different from those the board has in relation to approved regulators, designed specifically to govern the relationship between two distinct non-departmental public bodies with different functions, but with the OLC being subordinate to the LSB. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I express my gratitude to the Minister for giving further thought to the issue. It was dealt with at some length at an earlier stage and she has canvassed powerful arguments for the point of view she has been expressing. As she has described, there are powers. I acknowledged this in my opening remarks, but begged leave to doubt whether they were sufficiently targeted to the problem of complaints. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 335 and 336 not moved.]
	Clause 122 [Jurisdiction of the ombudsman scheme]:
	[Amendment No. 337 not moved.]
	Clause 125 [Parties]:
	[Amendment No. 338 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 339 to 341:
	Clause 125, page 64, line 13, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 125, page 64, line 27, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 125, page 64, line 36, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 126 [Pre-commencement acts and omissions]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 342 to 343:
	Clause 126, page 65, line 9, after "mark" insert "attorney"
	Clause 126, page 65, line 17, after "mark" insert "attorney"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 127 [Orders under Section 125]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 344 to 351:
	Clause 127, page 65, line 20, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 127, page 65, line 21, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 127, page 65, line 22, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 127, page 65, line 30, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 127, page 65, line 31, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 127, page 65, line 32, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 127, page 65, line 33, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 127, page 65, line 34, leave out "Secretary of State's" and insert "Lord Chancellor's"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 129 [Continuity of complaints]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 352:
	Clause 129, page 66, line 21, leave out from "rules" to "specified" and insert "must make provision permitting such persons as may be"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 353, 355, 357 to 360, 379 and 380, 382, 394 and 395, 402 to 404, 427, 434 and 446. This group of amendments, aimed at further protecting the consumers of legal services, responds to amendments debated in Committee which I agreed to take away and consider. While some are minor and clarificatory, I hope noble Lords will agree that others are of real substance and will improve the Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 352 and 353 respond to amendments helpfully moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in Committee. They will require scheme rules to make provision permitting specified persons to continue a complaint following the death or incapacitation of the original complainant. This means that the Office for Legal Complaints must give proper consideration to, and consult on, which persons should be allowed to continue a complaint. Complainants and their relatives or representatives will be certain whether and when they are eligible to continue a complaint.
	Amendment No. 355 arises out of helpful points made in Committee by my noble friend Lord Whitty clarifying the limits on the power of the Office for Legal Complaints to award costs against a party in favour of the OLC. As I said in Committee, it is important to strike a balance between allowing the Office for Legal Complaints to call to account complainants who, although they may have a genuine complaint, add disproportionately to the costs of determining it by utterly unreasonable behaviour, and preventing members of the legal profession from abusing this provision by deterring well founded complaints by suggesting that the complainant might have to contribute to the costs. We think that the wording of this amendment will produce the right balance. Noble Lords agreed in Committee that it is enormously important that the ombudsman scheme should not deter in any way genuine complainants from complaining, and therefore this amendment sets a high threshold for the award of costs against a complainant.
	Amendments Nos. 357, 358, 359 and 360 make it clear who can exercise the power of summary dismissal of a complaint. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on the fifth day in Committee that this should be a power exercisable only by an ombudsman, and the wording has been reconsidered with a view to making it entirely clear.
	Amendments Nos. 379, 380 and 382 have been drafted in response to amendments tabled earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and my noble friend Lord Whitty. In those circumstances, which we expect to be rare, where a respondent fails or refuses to comply with an ombudsman's determination, these amendments will give ombudsmen the power to take enforcement action in relation to that determination on a complainant's behalf, and we will set out the exact details in the scheme rules. These amendments therefore provide additional protection for vulnerable people who might not wish or know how to seek a court order themselves. Individuals may of course take action themselves, if they so wish, without the ombudsman's assistance.
	Amendments Nos. 394, 395 and 446 address concerns expressed in Committee by my noble friend Lady Henig, who is not in her place today. They enable approved regulators to respond quickly and effectively in cases of widespread wrongdoing, where potentially large numbers of consumers may be affected, but they may not know that they have a complaint or, indeed, the procedure for complaining. In circumstances where an approved regulator suspects widespread wrongdoing, these amendments will ensure that approved regulators can require authorised persons to investigate their files, and if they find signs of potential wrongdoing, alert the consumer and initiate the internal complaints process. Because of the importance of maintaining a clear role for the Office for Legal Complaints in providing redress, the amendments I have tabled do not allow approved regulators to award redress or require authorised persons to pay redress.
	Amendments Nos. 402 to 404, 427 and 434 again are tabled in response to persuasive arguments made in Committee by my noble friend Lord Whitty and others who have rightly identified that it is important for the OLC to have the power to administer a voluntary complaints handling scheme. The amendments will therefore give the Office for Legal Complaints the necessary powers to establish a voluntary scheme, subject to and within such boundaries as may be set by an enabling order made by the Lord Chancellor on the recommendation of the OLC or the LSB. I beg to move.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for addressing the point made in Committee about the continuity of complaints. Although this is only a minor concession, I appreciate that it will now be a requirement for the OLC to set out in its scheme rules the circumstances in which complaints may be continued on behalf of a person who has died or is otherwise unable to act. That removes what was certainly an inequitable lacuna in the Bill's coverage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 130 [Operation of the ombudsman scheme]:

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 354:
	Clause 130, page 67, line 12, at end insert—
	"(ha) for an ombudsman to award costs against the respondent in favour of the OLC for the purpose of providing a contribution to resources deployed in dealing with the complaint if—(i) the complaint against the respondent is determined or otherwise resolved substantially in favour of the complainant, or(ii) in the ombudsman's opinion the respondent failed to deal with the complaint in accordance with the regulatory arrangements which the relevant approved regulator has made under section 109."

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I will speak also to the remaining amendments in the group. The most important reason for supporting the amendment, and those that flow from it, is one of principle. Those exonerated following investigation or litigation should not be penalised for being found blameless. Accordingly, to require an authorised person under the Bill to pay the Office of Legal Complaints for the costs of handling a complaint when the complaint is unfounded and the person has handled the matter properly in house would be wholly unjust.
	It would also deter practitioners from acting in those fields of law where unjustified complaints are disproportionately likely such as in the areas of criminal and family law. In any case, since it will not be the Government or the OLC but the authorised persons in general who will have to pay instead through the general levy, neither the Government nor the OLC have any financial interest in sustaining the scheme set out in the Bill.
	The Bill's provisions are founded on the approach adopted by the financial ombudsman scheme. There, financial service providers are required to pay charges in respect of the handling of a complaint whatever its outcome. The Government believe that the OLC should be free to adopt the same approach; but the circumstances of the provision of legal services are different from the provision of financial services. Unfounded complaints, for example, from those who have lost a court case or whose house purchase has fallen through, are far more likely than in financial services. Furthermore, some practitioners are disproportionately likely, as I have indicated, to be the subject of such complaints. We think it is imperative that the administrative convenience of the OLC is not allowed to cause the clear injustice to lawyers of having to pay costs even where a complaint is not upheld and where their in-house handling of the complaint has been exemplary.
	Yet if the OLC has an unrestricted power to charge, it is likely to opt for a case-handling fee in all circumstances simply because that would be administratively more convenient to operate. I would add parenthetically and, I hope, reassuringly that of course we accept that the power to order authorised persons to pay charges cannot sensibly be confined only to cases where the complaint is upheld after a determination by an ombudsman. The likelihood is that the great majority of complaints will be conciliated in one way or another. It would not be satisfactory if authorised persons could avoid any liability to pay simply by settling the matter shortly before a determination would have to be made.
	Our amendment would also have the added attraction of encouraging practitioners to operate proper in-house complaints resolution systems. Failure to operate proper in-house procedures damages one of the Bill's key objectives; namely, ensuring that complaints can be resolved as rapidly as possible. Leaving all matters to be sorted out by the OLC is unsatisfactory from the perspective of complainants and involves putting an additional burden on the OLC. There is no reason why the profession collectively, rather than the practitioner who has failed to deal properly with the matter in-house, should bear the cost of that.
	In conclusion, it is important for the Bill to set out the limits of the OLC's discretion to impose charges. It would be quite wrong to put administrative simplicity ahead of the need to avoid causing injustice to those authorised persons who are the subject of unfounded complaints. I need add nothing to what I have said about the Minister's proposition that complaints that have got as far as the OLC must be partially justified. That assertion was effectively demolished in Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendments as being of principle, for the reasons given by my noble friend. There is not, and never has been, any entitlement to costs. An award of costs is entirely a question of discretion. In this case, with the ombudsman or the OLC, it is an exercise of quasi-judicial discretion. There is no entitlement; there never has been. The exercise of quasi-judicial discretion imposed by a mandatory costs order under primary legislation is anathema; it is ill-conceived and outrageously unfair.
	The exercise of such discretion, whether judicial or quasi-judicial, takes due and fair account of factors relevant to the case. I never cite cases here, but there was one in which I won in the Privy Council against my erstwhile noble friend, the late Lord Ripon, in which I did not get my costs. There was another in your Lordships' Appellate Committee, in which I lost and I did not have to pay any costs. The details do not matter—they are all recorded in the law reports—but what matters is the principle on which the court or the tribunal makes a fair decision.
	Is it really the business of Government to impose a costs order upon a lawyer who has committed no misconduct because he or she happens to have rendered legal services? How on earth did this happen? Well, you start off by calling the lawyer a "polluter". You take a spin for a placebo to feather, perhaps, the legacy nest. You conjure up in your mind a puppet show on the seaside in the old days: consumer with a truncheon clobbers bewigged polluter, and everyone screams with enjoyment. Why on earth were the recommendations of the Joint Committee, on which I had the privilege to serve, rejected? I would like that question to be answered.
	Why cannot the Clementi soft touch be found in the Bill? My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern mentioned this the other day, albeit in another context. Why was it ignored?
	I have another question which is relevant for answer. Is it the business of government to usurp this quasi judicial function as to costs? For the reasons given by my noble friend, which I have sought to supplement, I suggest that there is no justification for that whatever.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I appeal to my noble friend to respond affirmatively to these amendments. I have not entirely made up my mind about this; I remain to be convinced. Prima facie, I do not think that the Government's approach can be justified. I find it mysterious that they have moved in this direction. For that reason I remain to be convinced about the arguments.
	I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that there ought to be discretion here, as there is at the moment. Why does my noble friend depart from that view? I also share the view that in exercising that discretion—which the Government purport to avoid—the court should not be deprived of being able to listen to the arguments conveyed and make up its own mind. As I say, I find this whole thing very mysterious. I hope that it will be possible for the Government to change their mind.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, I, too, support these amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I am particularly concerned about Clause 133 and the requirement that the respondent who is in receipt of complaints by the applicant should be required to pay charges to the OLC. As a retired judge, I put a slightly different perspective on this. In some cases, judges force an agreement, settlement or, indeed, outcome over which the lawyer may have no control. They may be situations in which, for a number of very good reasons, there is absolutely no point in going to appeal but that is the basis of the complaint to the OLC. You cannot put the judge in the dock and it is extraordinarily unfair to put the lawyer in the dock for a situation over which he had no control. An absolute obligation that the respondent should pay charges would be manifestly unjust, like many other circumstances that have been referred to. I should not like to think that this Government acted unjustly in this sort of circumstance.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am the only non-lawyer pleading for more money in lawyers' pockets, but on this occasion I think that they are right. Will the noble Baroness take it from a non-lawyer that on this occasion we must say, "Poor pathetic lawyers, they need looking after"?

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I make two points in support of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. First, the comparison with financial institutions really is not right. In so far as the buyer is concerned, this burden will fall primarily on those who practise in the less well remunerated fields such as criminal law and family law and primarily on the younger members of the profession who have to deal with the more difficult and unreasonable clients. They are sole practitioners and would have to find those costs out of their own pockets.
	Secondly, there is the very important difference that if a nasty client who may cause trouble comes along, a financial institution can say, "I am sorry, I do not want to do your work". The poor unfortunate barrister, according to the cab-rank rule, has to take on the work even if he knows that the previous six people who acted for this client have all had complaints made against them, and that he is absolutely doomed to a complaint unless by very remarkable chance he happens to win. There he is, he takes it on because the rules say that he has to, and then he is landed with a bill for costs as a thank you for doing so.

Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I have spoken on previous occasions on this issue, and I have made clear my view that this is a thoroughly unjust provision and that the amendment is right. I have a specific question for the Minister. There is the usual certificate on the back of the Bill that all its provisions are in accordance with the Human Rights Act. Has some Minister actually considered that, if there are proceedings in which the accused is acquitted, it is in accordance with the human rights convention that what amounts to a financial fine can be imposed on him?

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, may I ask one further specific question? If this provision is incorporated into the Bill, can the Minister think of a single more enticing invitation to make a malicious complaint against someone who may have given you uncongenial advice than this one? If she can, will she specify it?

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I venture to say that no provision in the Bill has aroused stronger or more carefully argued opposition than this one. At this stage, since the arguments have been deployed extensively, I sense that the House is anxious to hear the views of the Minister and to reach a conclusion.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have no doubt that the House is anxious to reach a conclusion. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that he had demolished me. I feel dented rather than demolished by my experiences.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords,I do not think that I said that I demolished her; Isaid that her argument had been demolished in Committee.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Indeed, my Lords, but I like to give the noble Lord credit where credit is due for at least some denting.
	I looked very carefully at these issues, because I hope that noble Lords accept that it is my wont, certainly in Committee, to listen very carefully to what is being said. The only issue that divides us on the amendment is whether we define in the Bill at this point how a charging regime might operate, or whether we leave that to the Office for Legal Complaints, which must do it in consultation with the approved regulators, with the consent of the Legal Services Board and of the Lord Chancellor and in line with the regulatory objectives.
	The Government's position is that the latter route is more appropriate in seeking to set out in the Bill how it would happen, not least because it allows for flexibility and it ensures that the charging system can change and adapt over time on the basis of the sort of experience and good practice that noble Lords would wish to see the OLC consider. I know that noble Lords are worried and concerned about how the Office for Legal Complaints would exercise that flexibility, but I emphasise that the flexibility does not happen in an unconstrained way. In drawing up its rules, the Office for Legal Complaints must have regard to the regulatory objectives, including the public interest, and to the ombudsman scheme best practice, which is in Clause 113. It is also under a duty to consult on the content of the rules, which is in Clause 195.
	The Legal Services Board will have to give its consent to the rules under Clause 152 and, in doing so, must have regard to the regulatory objectives we have debated at length. The consent of the Lord Chancellor is required under Clause 152 and, taken together, we expect the oversight of both the Legal Services Board and the Lord Chancellor to be an important check, if needed, on how the Office for Legal Complaints drafts the rules to ensure that they are fair and proportionate.
	I could add that the Office for Legal Complaints and, indeed, the Legal Services Board are responsible to Parliament for the operation of the scheme, including the system of case fees. They will have to produce the annual report and, if need be, appear before—

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is the object and justification for a mandatory costs imposition for that?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, if the noble Lord will let me continue, I will deal with that point.
	As I was saying, the OLC can also be required to appear before a parliamentary Select Committee to give evidence on the operation of the scheme. Ultimately, the decision of both bodies which set out the rules is judicially reviewable on the usual grounds. So my first proposition is that the constraints ensuring that the system of case fees operates fairly are in place.
	We come to the proposition, which I have seen in briefing material for today's debate, that Clause 133 is manifestly unfair. I could not disagree more. Nowhere does Clause 133 say that a flat fee will apply for every complaint the OLC receives. Nowhere does it say that every lawyer will have to pay the same rate of charge. Nowhere does it say that the lawyers will pay the charge even if the complainant is vexatious or frivolous. It says that the scheme rules will set out how charges against lawyers are to operate. I have been through this in great detail because I was much taken with our debate in Committee. The implication of many speeches in your Lordships' House has been that we were setting out a system under which every lawyer has to pay regardless. Nowhere does Clause 133 say that. It says that the scheme rules will have to set this out. As to whether it is human-rights compliant, I am the human rights Minister: it is my job to ensure, certainly within my own department, that it is compliant. It is.
	The critical point is that the clause does not say what has been implied, and there is therefore an unfounded concern in your Lordships' House. It is possible that the OLC, having considered representations made and having read the deliberations of your Lordships' House will decide that it would be unfair to charge a fee for complaints that are not upheld. There are other circumstances, as noble Lords have indicated at Second Reading and in Committee, and repeated today, where it might also be deemed unfair to charge a fee. My argument is simple: the Office for Legal Complaints should take a view on the circumstances in which fees should and should not apply, based on appropriate oversight and the consultation required under the clauses I have indicated.
	We cannot argue that the rules are unfair, because they have not been made. Nothing in the Bill suggests that there must be a blanket charge for any lawyer, whether or not they have fulfilled their obligations under an in-house complaints system, or have been taken to the Office for Legal Complaints in a vexatious way. Quite the opposite: the Office for Legal Complaints must draw up rules and, in doing so, consult the professions and the Legal Services Board, and consult and deal with the Lord Chancellor. There are currently no rules, and it is important that we let the Office for Legal Complaints design the rules within the process and constraints I have identified.
	On the case-handling fee being disproportionately high, nowhere in Parts 6 or 7 does the Bill say what the split will be between the levy and charges. Nowhere does it indicate how that will be calculated. Parts 6 and 7 say that the Legal Services Board and the Office for Legal Complaints should decide what the split should be between the levy and the charges under Clause 133. In the absence of their having made that decision, we cannot speculate on what the case-handling fee would be. The truth is that until they have decided we will not know what the split will be. Until the OLC has had its rules approved we will not know what the case-handling fee is.
	In conclusion, I am arguing for flexibility; let the Office for Legal Complaints make the decisions within its constraints. It will take into account not only your Lordships' words, but also its consultation with the professions. On that basis and with my assurances, noble Lords will see that there is nothing in Clause 133 that says that any lawyer has to pay regardless. It says that there should be rules that set out the circumstances in which lawyers should pay or not pay.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the failure that we are concerned with is not that there is no statement giving the power that might be abused, but that there is a total silence with regard to a priceless principle—a person who has discharged him or herself of services in a proper professional way should be condemned in costs? Is it impossible to include such a statement of principle which would deal with the problem simply?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, throughout this legislation we have debated fairness, proportionality and the regulatory objectives. I completely understand the concerns that have been raised. Having looked at the Bill, it is my view that those issues with which noble Lords are concerned are inherent within it in the context of people behaving in a proportionate and fair manner. That is an important part of the way that the OLC would operate.
	There is nothing in the Bill that does what noble Lords fear. There is everything in the Bill that says that the OLC must make rules and identify those who should pay and not pay. I understand noble Lords' concerns that those that have been brought in a vexatious way should have that recognised by the OLC and I agree with them.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, your Lordships have asked the Government to enshrine in the Bill the principle that an authorised person should not be penalised for being found blameless. The Government have been unable to do that. In the circumstances I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 354) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 183; Not-Contents, 127.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 355:
	Clause 130, page 67, line 16, leave out from "opinion" to end of line 19 and insert "that person acted so unreasonably in relation to the complaint that it is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case to make such an award;"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 356:
	Clause 130, page 67, line 47, after "(3)(h)" insert ", (ha)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 131 [Delegation of an ombudsman's functions]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 357 to 360:
	Clause 131, page 68, line 15, leave out "(but not determination)"
	Clause 131, page 68, line 17, leave out from "Part" to end of line 18
	Clause 131, page 68, leave out line 19 and insert—
	"(2) Nothing in subsection (1) applies to the following functions—
	( ) the function of determining a complaint;( ) the function of deciding that a complaint should be dismissed by virtue of rules under section 130(3)(a));"
	Clause 131, page 68, line 21, leave out "and"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 133 [Charges payable by respondents]:

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendments Nos. 361 to 364:
	Clause 133, page 68, line 41, at end insert—
	"(1A) The rules must provide for the OLC to reduce or waive a charge in circumstances where—
	(a) the complaint relates to activity undertaken otherwise than for reward, or(b) it appears to the OLC that the amount of a charge, unless reduced or waived, would be disproportionate having regard to the gravity or nature of the complaint, the value (if any) of the subject matter of the activity to which it relates, or the consideration payable for the services used by the complainant which consist of or include that activity, or(c) it appears to the OLC that the amount of a charge, unless reduced or waived, would cause the respondent undue hardship.
	(1B) The rules must also provide for the refund of the whole or part of a charge where circumstances coming to the OLC's attention since the charge was paid are such that it appears to the OLC that the amount of the charge, unless wholly or partly refunded—
	(a) is disproportionate having regard to the gravity or nature of the complaint, the value (if any) of the subject matter of the activity to which it relates, or the consideration payable for the services used by the complainant which consist of or include that activity, or(b) causes the respondent undue hardship."
	Clause 133, page 68, line 41, at end insert—
	"( ) Scheme rules must provide that any charge in relation to a complaint shall not become payable by a respondent unless the complaint is determined or otherwise resolved substantially in favour of the complainant."
	Clause 133, page 68, line 43, at end insert "(other than one to which rules pursuant to subsection (1A) apply)"
	Clause 133, page 69, line 3, at end insert "(other than circumstances in which rules pursuant to subsection (1B) apply)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 134 [Determination of complaints]:
	[Amendments Nos. 365 and 366 not moved.]
	Clause 136 [Alteration of limit]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 367:
	Clause 136, page 70, line 23, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 368 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 369 to 375:
	Clause 136, page 70, line 25, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 136, page 70, line 29, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 136, page 70, line 37, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 136, page 70, line 38, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 136, page 70, line 39, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 136, page 70, line 40, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 136, page 70, line 41, leave out "Secretary of State's" and insert "Lord Chancellor's"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 137 [Acceptance or rejection of determination]:
	[Amendments Nos. 376 to 378 not moved.]
	Clause 138 [Enforcement by complainant of directions under section 134]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 379 and 380:
	Clause 138, page 72, line 13, after "complainant" insert "or an ombudsman"
	Clause 138, page 72, line 16, after "complainant" insert "or an ombudsman"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 381 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 382:
	Clause 138, page 72, line 20, at end insert—
	"( ) An ombudsman may make an application under subsection (2) or (3) only in such circumstances as may be specified in scheme rules, and with the complainant's consent.
	( ) If the court makes an order under subsection (2) on the application of an ombudsman, the ombudsman may in such circumstances as may be specified in scheme rules and with the complainant's consent recover the amount mentioned in that subsection on behalf of the complainant."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 383:
	After Clause 139, insert the following new Clause—
	"Handling of complaints by approved regulator
	(1) The Board may direct that complaints within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman scheme and of such description as are specified in the direction shall be determined by an approved regulator instead of an ombudsman.
	(2) The Board may by further direction vary or withdraw a direction given under subsection (1).
	(3) Before giving a direction under this section the Board must consult—
	(a) the OLC,(b) the approved regulator concerned, and(c) such other persons as the Board considers it reasonable to consult.
	(4) If the Board gives a direction under this section, it must—
	(a) give a copy to the OLC, the Lord Chancellor, the approved regulator concerned, and any person consulted under subsection (3)(c), and(b) publish the direction in the way it thinks fit.
	(5) A direction under this section may include—
	(a) transitional provision in relation to complaints already being dealt with under the ombudsman scheme or by an approved regulator, and(b) incidental, supplemental or consequential provision, including provision applying a provision of or made under this Part, with or without modifications, to the determination of a complaint by an approved regulator."

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 383, 392 and 393 provide for the delegation of complaints handling to an approved regulator by a direction of the Legal Services Board. Where such a direction is given, the approved regulator would be empowered to award redress to the complainant, which Clause 154 currently prohibits. The Legal Services Board would have power subsequently to vary or withdraw a direction. In deciding whether to give, vary or withdraw a direction, the Legal Services Board would be bound by Clause 3 to act compatibly with the regulatory objectives and the other regulatory principles of the Bill.
	Part 6 establishes the OLC, the resolution body, for those who consider that their complaints have not satisfactorily been dealt with by the in-house arrangements of the relevant legal service provider. Under the Bill, the OLC will investigate service complaints itself but will refer complaints about misconduct to an approved regulator for resolution. However, approved regulators will no longer have the power to award redress to complainants.
	The Law Society, representing 116,000 solicitors, received more than 17,000 new complaints against it in 2004-05, accounting for about 86 per cent of the total costs of legal complaints handling. By contrast, the Bar Standards Board, the regulatory arm of the Bar Council—the governing body for 14,000 barristers—deals with fewer than 1,000 complaints each year. The Bar Standards Board estimates that about 3 per cent of cases referred to the OLC will derive from the Bar.
	As we saw in Committee, about 70 per cent of complaints against barristers involve allegations that, if true, would require both compensation for inadequate professional service and proceedings for misconduct. The approved regulator, where appropriate, should be in a position to deal with both aspects. It is both inconvenient and confusing for consumers to have to deal with two different bodies about different aspects of their complaints, especially if one body accepts the facts to which the complaint relates but the other does not. There is also likely to be duplication of work and therefore unnecessary expense. Moreover, the approved regulator has a range of powers, including powers to award redress, which are far wider than those proposed for the OLC. This enables it to ensure that the most appropriate remedy or sanction is provided through a single procedure.
	By contrast, the proposed new complaints-handling system will involve decision making by salaried non-lawyers who are unlikely to be able to supply the analysis and expertise currently provided free of charge. It is one of the,
	"many advantages that have been provided by the Bar's handling of complaints".—[Official Report, 6/12/06; col. 1186.]
	That should not be lost by the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, a former director of the Office of Fair Trading, warned us at Second Reading.
	As we saw in Committee, the Bar Council has established a body of expertise and maintained a complaints-handling service that is widely acknowledged to be of an extremely high standard. As we saw in Committee, the Legal Services Ombudsman has consistently given high marks to the Bar Standards Board for the speed and quality of its complaints service. Robert Behrens, the Bar Standards Board's independent complaints commissioner, has said that there is a strong case for the Bar Standards Board to have delegated jurisdiction over complaints about poor service.
	Clause 154 creates inflexibility in complaints handling and adds massively to its costs. We have concluded that the Bill as drafted is certain to offer a poorer service to consumers at vastly greater cost—at least as far as the Bar is concerned. The Bar Standards Board, the approved regulator for the Bar, is an independent, ring-fenced, regulatory authority. It already deals with both service and conduct complaints. It already has a significant lay element, and its decisions are subject to a lay veto. This is emphatically not a case of lawyers deciding on complaints against lawyers. The independent Legal Services Ombudsman has repeatedly said that the Bar Standards Board does outstanding work.
	We had hoped that the experience and expertise that barristers and lay members bring to providing a professional, cost-effective approach to complaints handling would, in the interests of consumers, be recognised in the Bill. Instead, the Government are persisting with a scheme which will provide a sub-optimal service to consumers at a colossal cost to the service providers.
	The Government's proposals for amending complaints handling, and in particular the new clause inserted after Clause 154 by Amendment No. 395 and the new clauses after Clause 159 by Amendments Nos. 403 to 405, involve a voluntary scheme as an add-on to the main statutory one. However, the amendments do not address the problems that we have identified in the legislation. Nor do they answer our objections to the complete exclusion of approved regulators, with all their expertise from the ombudsman process. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendments, but I could not do so in only a few words unless I had listened to my noble friend Lord Kingsland, who put the whole scene to the House so much better than I could ever have done. Therefore, accepting everything that my noble friend said, and his argument, I shall make a short point. This is a matter of principle. These are enabling amendments, which in no way break the structure of the Bill or the board's control under it. If the amendments were accepted, there could be no requirement on the board to direct any approved regulator in any complaint that lies within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman, and, indeed, after consultation with the OLC, the approved regulator and any other person. This essence of consultation is highly commendable, as is the essence of partnership, to which my noble friend Lord Kingsland referred in another context. The ombudsman has approved the complaints procedure, as it stands, in relation to the Bar, but that does not mean that the procedure cannot be amended in consultation from time to time or that the directions in proposed new subsection (1) of the amendment would not be wholly justified. We are not in a static situation, and the amendment takes due account of that. It would comply wholly with the Clementi soft-touch approach. I cannot speak for any branch of the legal profession—probably not even for my own now—but surely it is right in principle that the amendment should be supported.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, for many years now, there have been independent reviews of the complaints system run in respect of solicitors and the complaints system run in respect of the Bar. Up to now, independent reviews, especially those conducted by the ombudsman, have, year in and year out, unanimously condemned the Law Society's complaints schemes as defective, deficient and inadequate, whereas the system run by the Bar up to now has been praised as modest in charges and in price—taking advantage of the barristers' willingness to do this kind of work free of charge—and has received a tremendous amount of praise. In the Bill as it stands, complaints about both solicitors and barristers are wrapped up together and given to a new statutory body, which will of course be quite expensive. The new system does not take into account the difference between the complaints systems of the two branches of the profession, which I have just mentioned.
	The Bar Standards Board, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred, has a lay chairman and other lay members, as well as lawyers and barristers. Both kinds of people are helpful to one another, as I understand it. The Bar Standards Board can hardly be regarded as simply a lawyer's charade. The only case the Government have for wrapping up together the complaints systems for both solicitors and barristers is that it is "tidy" and, as it were, fair to both branches of the profession.
	The Law Society, in its briefing to me—and, no doubt, to other noble Lords—has admitted that its own schemes have been deficient. It does not pretend that its history is as good as the Bar's in handling complaints. This amendment—or something like it, if I may put it that way to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—is surely desirable to modify the Government's approach, to allow some flexibility which the history of complaints against the legal profession surely justifies.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, the speech we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, came as music to my ears; his arguments were extremely compelling. Uniformity does not necessarily mean that we will have a more efficient or effective scheme. The underlying concern about the basic thrust of the Government's proposals is that they risk creating a rather bureaucratic monster which is not apt to deal any better with complaints that would previously have been handled by the Bar Council.
	The issue of cost remains extremely important. It is clear that the Bar Council's existing arrangements for handling complaints have been of great benefit to the consumer. We have not heard anything in the discussion of costs that has led us to believe that this problem will go away under the Government's new legislation. It is time to draw a line and say firmly to the representatives of the consumer lobby, who have expressed a preference for uniformity of treatment, that this does not necessarily work to the advantage of those whom they represent.
	I have found it increasingly distasteful in the course of these debates to hear opinions which almost suggest that lawyers are the enemy of consumers. That is a complete travesty of the truth. Lawyers are very often necessary to ensure that remedies are obtained. Their skills as advocates, and in some cases their selfless preparedness to investigate allegations, are worthy of commendation.
	A brief from Which? which was passed to some Members of this House said:
	"Consumers will not trust a regulatory system that allows lawyers to judge their own".
	That is simply a misrepresentation of the position of the Bar Council. Significantly, its conduct committee has 10 lay members whose decisions are subject to a lay veto, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, stated. If that is the best argument that can be produced in favour of this inflexibility, it is a bad argument which ought to be roundly rejected by the Government.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, I shall speak briefly because the points have been strongly put by my noble friend Lord Kingsland and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I may be disappointed, but the noble Baroness may be about to stand up to tell us what good sense has been spoken. I sincerely hope so. It seems to me to be quite compelling to be able to save costs, to do justice better and to have less complexity, which would trump uniformity for the sake of uniformity every time. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give us more confidence than her recent headshake suggested.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord is very gracious in the way in which he puts forward his comments. Noble Lords have made strong arguments about the role of the Bar and I hope that they will agree that at no point in our deliberations have I indicated anything other than the highest regard for the way in which the Bar handles complaints. On the work going on with the Law Society and its regulatory body, I read out its latest report on its quality and success in handling complaints. Although I do not have the figures with me, I think that noble Lords will agree that it is being done in a better way than previously. I do not begin for one second to suggest that we are bringing it together to suggest in any way the wrapping-up of all the regulators or that they are failing, or that taking complaints away is a form of punishment. That is absolutely not the objective.
	We have approached this issue from a different perspective. We know that there is an issue of public confidence. It may be more perception than reality in the context of the Bar. I did not know how the Bar handled its complaints procedure until I was involved in this job. It is not really surprising if the public do not know about the way in which the Bar handles complaints. None the less, whether it is right or wrong, there is an issue about perception in public confidence and the way in which complaints generally are handled.
	Inevitably, there is an inconsistency in the way that the various complaint-handling arrangements work. Among some people who wish to bring forward complaints, there is some confusion about where to take them. That is probably particularly important where, for example, a solicitor may have instructed a barrister and the consumer has to try to determine where the fault lies and to whom to complain. Noble Lords may not like it, but there is an issue about independence—real or perceived—of complaints about lawyers being handled by their own professional bodies.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, read out part of a letter, which I think that noble Lords have received. The letter is addressed to me, dated 4 May, from the National Consumer Council, Citizens Advice and Which?. The noble Lord may argue that they do not necessarily represent appropriately the people whom they seek to, but they are the most prestigious bodies we have for consumer affairs. Therefore, noble Lords would expect me to take note of what they said. As the noble Lord said, the letter states:
	"Consumers will not trust a regulatory system that allows lawyers to judge their own".
	It continues:
	"Independence is the single most critical principle in any redress system. Separating the regulatory and representative functions of the professional bodies will be insufficient to command consumer confidence in this respect, especially given the relevant governance and complaint committees will continue to have professional majorities".
	That may be inaccurate in the context of the Bar, but that is what they say. They go on:
	"The Bar can be reassured that the Office of Legal Complaints will be, and must be, an entirely new body. The emergence of alternative business structures will further blur the boundaries between the legal professions. In this new world, consumers should not be left to navigate a regulatory maze to resolve their disputes".
	Noble Lords will have seen the letter. I shall make sure there is a copy in the Library of your Lordships' House.
	As I have said, because we are also introducing alternative business structures, there will be opportunities for solicitors and barristers to work together in other ways. As the letter points out, this will add to the potential confusion for those who seek to complain. We believe it is more sensible in creating a new system to have one body that handles complaints about all legal professionals. That is clearer and more consistent; the system is straightforward, people know where to go and it can be dealt with properly. The most clear and consistent message since Sir David Clementi's report, and before that, is to make sure that we deal with any perceived or real loss of confidence in the way that legal professional bodies have dealt with consumer complaints about their members.
	I have had the privilege of talking to the Bar Council and to Geoffrey Vos, who has passionately and straightforwardly put the concerns of the Bar. One issue has been to make sure that the expertise and experience that could be available to the Office for Legal Complaints is not lost. I have indicated to Geoffrey Vos that we have looked carefully at Schedule 15(15), because that allows the OLC to enter into arrangements with regulators to provide it with assistance as it sees fit. There is no question that the ultimate decision-making must rest with the ombudsman—it must be an independent process. Yet I would expect the OLC to be in discussion with the regulators, and to think about what expertise might be available that it could usefully use while retaining the independent system. The Bar and other regulators may well assist under the new arrangements.
	The key difference between this and what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, proposed is that, in line with Sir David's philosophy, the OLC can make the best of existing arrangements by drawing on the Bar's or any other bodies' expertise, rather than completely delegating the responsibility it has to the public to ensure quick and fair redress. Within that context, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, it really pains me to stand up at the Opposition Dispatch Box and once again take issue with what the noble Baroness says, especially as she has spoken in such measured and conciliatory tones. Yet she must know by now, having had these exchanges not only at Second Reading but also in Committee, that what she has said simply will not wash.
	I find it difficult to understand how the noble Baroness can in one breath say that she absolutely accepts everything that has been said about the high quality of the Bar Standards Board and the way the Bar deals with complaints, and yet, in another breath, say that, even if in reality these standards are high, the public have doubts—that there is a public perception that somehow these standards, which she knows are met, are not being met. Where does this perception come from? What evidence does the noble Baroness have that there is a public perception that, despite all the evidence, the Bar Standards Board falls below requirements that have been tested over a long period? There is no such perception.
	Then the noble Baroness says that there is concern that it is lawyers judging lawyers. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, had the complete answer to that: there are 10 lay members on the Bar Standards Board. The ultimate say on whether a Bar Standards Board decision stands is made by a lay person.
	Why does the noble Baroness think that the Legal Services Board has nothing to do with the law? There will be lawyers on the board. Further, why is she so convinced that the Legal Services Board is independent, whereas the Bar Standards Board is not? Did not your Lordships pass an amendment requiring the Lord Chancellor to have concurrent advice from the Lord Chief Justice precisely because the House does not believe that, as presently structured under this Bill, the Legal Services Board is independent?
	I know how hard the noble Baroness has striven to resolve this particular problem in the Bill; but I have to say to her, most disappointingly, that I cannot accept her arguments as a satisfactory substitute for these amendments, and therefore again I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 383) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 185; Not-Contents, 135.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Elections: Scottish Parliament

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to repeat a Statement given by my right honourable friend Douglas Alexander in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
	"A great deal of wholly legitimate public concern has been expressed over certain aspects of last Thursday's election. I entirely share these concerns. They focus mainly on three areas: the arrangements for the administration of postal ballots; the operation of e-counting machines; and the significant number of spoilt ballot papers."Mr Speaker, when it became apparent in the early hours of Friday morning that difficulties were emerging, I contacted Professor Sir Neil McIntosh, the Scottish Electoral Commissioner. I expressed to him my concern that these issues be addressed as part of the statutory review of the Scottish elections that the commission is obliged to undertake, as a matter of urgency. Sir Neil was able to offer me this reassurance and this investigation is indeed now under way."The Electoral Commission has a statutory duty to report on the Scottish parliamentary elections. At the request of the Scottish Executive it will also be reporting on the local government elections. The commission is an independent body and is committed to ensuring a full and independent review of the Scottish elections. "In those areas where the commission itself has an operational involvement—for example, in its statutory duty to promote public awareness of electoral systems—the commission will ensure independent evaluation of its own work, as it has in previous statutory reports. The commission is currently finalising the scope and timescale of the review, but intends to publish a report in the summer."A focus of public concern has been the adoption of a single ballot paper for the Scottish elections and the holding of those elections on the same day as the local government election. The poll for the Scottish Parliament elections is set in the Scotland Act. It has a predetermined cycle that Parliament at the time supported fully. I am not aware of any calls to change that. The decision to hold the local government elections on the same day was entirely a decision for Scottish Executive Ministers. It was enshrined in legislation which was fully debated and passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2001."Without wishing to prejudice the findings of this inquiry I should like to set out to the House the sequence of recommendations, consultations and decisions that led to the adoption of a single ballot paper for both elements of the Scottish Parliament elections, which are matters for which the Government have legislative responsibility."On 25 May 2004, my predecessor as Secretary of State, my right honourable friend the Member for Edinburgh Central, announced the creation of a commission under the chairmanship of Sir John Arbuthnott to examine the implications of Scotland having four different voting systems. This commission was independent and included nominations from political parties. The commission issued a consultation paper in January 2005 and spent 12 months gathering evidence and carrying out a wide-ranging and extensive inquiry."The Arbuthnott commission issued its report jointly to my predecessor and the Scottish First Minister on 19 January 2006. The report contained a series of recommendations and suggestions—some to the Electoral Commission concerning voter education; some to the Scottish Executive, such as a recommendation to move the date of the local government elections; and several recommendations to the Government."My right honourable friend made it clear that it was unlikely that we would be in a position to implement those recommendations from the report which would require primary legislation in time for the 2007 Scottish elections."However, there was one matter that could be progressed without the need for primary legislation—the suggestion that the two ballot papers for the regional list and constituency member be combined into one, with the regional list on the left-hand column, based on the example of the New Zealand paper."In the light of the views of the Arbuthnott commission I decided to proceed with a wider public consultation in order to test whether the suggested move to a single ballot paper commanded more general support, and to explore the appropriate design of such a ballot paper."The Scotland Office launched this consultation on 9 June 2006. In addition, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary met a range of interested parties, including representatives from disability rights groups, to explore these issues. There was a significant level of support for a single ballot paper. Of 29 respondents, the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party, the Liberal party of Scotland, Enable Scotland and Capability Scotland were not in favour of a combined ballot paper. I have requested that all responses to this consultation are placed in the Library of the House."The major political parties that expressed a view were largely in favour: Derek Barrie, chief of staff, on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, responded on 15 June:
	'The Scottish Liberal Democrats warmly welcome and fully endorse the proposal to have one ballot paper only for the next diet of Scottish Parliament elections in May 2007. This is one recommendation of Arbuthnott that we fully agree with'.
	"Peter Murrell, chief executive of the Scottish National Party, responded on 16 August 2006:
	'The Scottish National Party is in support of the proposed move to a single ballot paper for both votes in the Scottish Parliament elections. We believe that this will aid understanding of both elements of the voting system and, in particular, remove any misunderstanding that the regional vote is somehow a second preference vote'.
	"Lesley Quinn, the General Secretary of the Scottish Labour Party, responded:
	'The Scottish Labour Party strongly supports a single ballot paper, as this will simplify voting, counting, voter awareness and understanding. A single ballot paper will reduce the potential for voter confusion and be easier for people to use'.
	No response to the consultation was received from the Scottish Conservative Party.
	"Beyond the political parties, the Electoral Reform Society responded:
	'The Electoral Reform Society supports the use of a single ballot paper for the Scottish Parliament elections'.
	SOLAR—the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland—responded:
	'The SOLAR elections working group unanimously agreed to support the proposal that both Scottish Parliament contests be contained on one ballot paper'.
	"In order to further explore those issues in advance of a decision as part of the consultation, the Scotland Office also requested the Electoral Commission to research with voters the impact of any possible change to the ballot paper format. On 4 August 2006, Sir Neil McIntosh wrote to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, enclosing the findings of that research, which involved focus groups carried out in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Inverness and Dundee. A copy of the research has been placed in the Library of the House, together with the covering letter from the Electoral Commission. In that covering letter, Sir Neil McIntosh wrote:
	'As you can see, the research draws a number of clear conclusions for the design of the Scottish Parliamentary Ballot Paper. These conclusions point to the interests of the voter best being served by: A design of ballot paper that incorporates both the regional and constituency ballot papers alongside each other on a single sheet of paper'.
	The findings of the focus groups supported the move to a single ballot paper, with a significant majority of respondents agreeing with the overall preference in favour of a single combined ballot paper rather than two separate papers.
	"Only after that extensive consultation involving the widest possible range of stakeholders, the support of the main political parties that expressed a preference, the research received indicating the best interest of the voter being served by a single ballot paper, and clear official advice, was a decision taken to proceed with a single ballot paper for the Scottish parliamentary elections."There is also the issue of delays in the administration of postal ballots. The handling of postal votes is increasingly of public interest and concern, which is why we already have stiff penalties in legislation to prevent fraud. The use of postal votes in higher numbers than before makes that all the more important. When it became clear that such delays were occurring in the days prior to polling day, I instructed my officials to contact the Electoral Commission to ensure that these matters would be fully investigated. "However, the process at local level for the preparation and delivery of postal votes is for returning officers and their staff. They make the contractual arrangements that they judge appropriate for their area. They are well aware of the tight timescales involved in getting out the papers to voters. When the Electoral Commission reports, I will of course examine whether there are steps that the Government can take to help ensure that the postal vote problems that certainly beset regions such as the Highlands, Dumfries and Galloway, among others, do not happen again."Finally, I will turn to the issue of e-counting. In 2005, the Scottish Executive approached the Scotland Office to discuss the option of using e-counting at the combined poll. That arose mainly because of the benefits of handling a count of ballots under the single transferable vote method. Manual counting of STV would take many days and be highly complex. My predecessor as Secretary of State, after careful assessment of advice, gave an agreement in principle to the option, but stressed the need for systematic testing and evaluation of the equipment and software."That took place through late 2005 and into 2006, up to the final procurement decisions. Many tests and demonstrations were held for electoral administrators, political parties, special interest groups and others. Various contingencies were tested, including power failures and ballot papers that had been creased or folded. The process was led by a steering group comprising officials from the Scotland Office, the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament, as well as representatives from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators, the Scottish Assessors Association and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. I am advised that none of these simulations gave any evidence of the kind or scale of problems we saw in some centres on Thursday night and Friday morning. Clearly, this is an issue which will be absolutely central to the Electoral Commission's report."Mr Speaker, there are clearly a number of issues that need to be explored in relation to the problems encountered in the conduct of these elections. The Electoral Commission must now be allowed to undertake its statutory review which, as I have said before, will be available by the summer. I will, of course, update the House at that stage, in the light of their conclusions".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. Speaking of the Scottish elections, it would be remiss of me not to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, who is unfortunately not in his place, on his successful election to the Scottish Parliament. His only sadness must be that it looks as though he is to be denied the opportunity of asking the same kind of congratulatory questions of government Ministers there as he was able to do in this place.
	Scotland has been wished four different voting systems. That has been a source of confusion for a start. The Government were warned by no less an authority than the Electoral Commission, and equally by the Arbuthnott commission, of the dangers of trying to hold an election for two different systems on the same day. The Labour and Liberal Democrat Members of the Scottish Parliament were likewise warned by the Scottish Conservative Members of the dangers of combining the local government elections with the Scottish parliamentary ones. Still they persisted. Does this not bring to mind the fiasco that we have all witnessed over the single farm payments in England, where an arrogant belief in a rational and intellectual but complicated system runs completely foul of reality?
	The outcome is causing anger and dismay across Scotland. Noble Lords will be aware that in one constituency, Shettleston, there were over 2,000 spoilt ballots. A small country that thought that it was being offered the chance of a higher profile on the world stage has been turned into a laughing stock. I notice that it was claimed in another place that all the spoilt ballots from a few constituencies are not known. Can the Minister tell us how many spoilt ballots are known?
	The final legislation for both elements of these elections was passed through this House after a Grand Committee on 7 March. The Statement highlights the problems of postal ballots. There have been stories of postal ballots being delivered on 2 May for an election on 3 May, or not at all. Can the Minister say why so little time was given to the returning officers to complete their tasks? The Statement talks of the tests and demonstrations of the machines for the electronic counting systems. Was the lateness in finalising the design of the ballot papers a factor in the electronic counting fiasco? What proportion of the votes was subject to recounting? In particular, did they have to be recounted manually as a result of the e-counting malfunction?
	The Minister is a good and decent man. In his heart of hearts he will be as dismayed as the rest of us by the mess that the Secretary of State has created; yet another example of the consequences of the Government's constant tinkering and messing about with our tried and trusted voting system. If the Prime Minister is looking for a legacy, he need look no further than the complicating and discrediting of a voting system once unquestioned anywhere. Once we sent out the international election inspectors and advisers; now they are heading to Holyrood to find out why Scottish electors are being robbed of their votes in their tens of thousands. What a shambles and a disgrace.
	Is the Minister aware that in 11 general elections from 1964 the proportion of spoilt ballots was never more than 0.38 per cent, and usually below 0.2 per cent? In the first round of the recent French election, with 12 candidates and 37 million voters, spoilt ballots were only 1.4 per cent. By contrast, does he recall the fiasco of the London elections in 2004, the closest parallel to these events? Several voting systems were run in parallel on the same day and over 500,000 Londoners saw their votes spoilt; 3 per cent of mayoral votes and nearly 7 per cent of the Assembly votes were rejected. What was said then? The senior returning officer said that the legislation was not passed in time. The Electoral Reform Society said that the problems were foreseen but ignored. The Government said that they would learn the lessons. The shameful reality is that they did not listen then and they did not learn. As a direct result, Scotland has suffered a similar fiasco.
	It is all very well the Electoral Commission and the Government promising an inquiry now and the Liberal Democrats calling for one, but they have all been complicit in creating the debacle. The most obvious place to look for solutions is not from those who presided over the debacle in the first place. I do not consider that the appointment of an inquiry into this fiasco, while necessary, is enough to absolve the Government of all responsibility.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I join in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement of the Secretary of State. Dismay at the outcome of the elections held on the same day is widely felt throughout Scotland. In passing, I note that the Scottish Conservative Party was not among those that gave advice about the process of having a double ballot on one paper. Some of us would prefer not to jump to conclusions as to which of the novelties was responsible for what appears to have been a catastrophically mismanaged election.
	We welcome the Electoral Commission's decision to put in hand the inquiry into the spoilt ballots, the postal voting and electronic counting; all of them had novel features and appeared to have contributed in some measure to denying perhaps as many as one in 20 of the Scottish electors the opportunity of contributing to the outcome of the election, as they believed they had done. There have been instances of voting for two authorities on the same day in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland in 2005. There was a warning issued by the Electoral Commission at that time. In the report on that election it stated:
	"If combined elections are to become the norm then much more needs to be done ... to ensure the electorate understands the different voting systems".
	I think that it is fair to say that not much had been done in Scotland prior to the elections last Thursday. The Minister's Statement indicated that the Government considered that there was not a sufficient gap between the decisions and the election to introduce legislation. Is legislation is really necessary to enable the education of the electorate to take place?
	The problem has unquestionably vitiated the authority of those democratic elections. With such a high proportion of spoilt ballots, there must be great grievances in particular constituencies. It is extremely difficult for individuals who may have suffered from this to pursue their cause through an election court, particularly as there are so few precedents to guide the returning officers on what was appropriate behaviour and to enable the court to decide what would be unreasonable. I hope that, in considering these matters, the Electoral Commission will give thought to the possibility of manually checking e-ballots where the voter's mind was not able to be read. The old system of manual checking was regarded as being effective and pretty accurate by and large.
	My final point is on the review. In so far as there may be questions about whether the Electoral Commission conducted all the necessary preliminary inquiries and took the necessary steps, and given that it is, in a sense, involved in the outcome of this election, the Government will have to give some thought to whether further independent consideration needs to be given to those matters where it might be invidious for the commission to pronounce on its own performance.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for his kind words about my noble friend Lord Foulkes. We on this side will miss him, and I personally will miss him a great deal, as he has been a breath of fresh air.
	I disagree with the noble Duke's point that this mess was created by the Secretary of State. That is a good political point, but if he listened to the Statement, as I am sure he did, he will know that the Scottish Executive made a number of decisions and local returning officers were responsible for many of the activities that resulted in the problems that he is laying at the feet of the Government. As I said, that is a good debating point, but it is not particularly fair.
	The import of my right honourable friend's Statement is that a number of things have gone wrong. He and the Government are determined to find out what went wrong. We have asked the Electoral Commission—an independent body with a statutory right and duty to look into these matters—to look into all aspects and report back. As my right honourable friend said a few minutes ago in another place, if, as a result of the Electoral Commission's report, there is a need for further matters to be inquired into, we will not hesitate to do that. The intention is there; we are not avoiding any issue. That is an important point for all noble Lords to take on board.
	Let me answer some of the specific points that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, raised. The poll has been criticised, but the Scottish Parliament has, under the Scotland Act, the duty to come to those decisions. The local government elections are for Scottish Executive Ministers, not London, to decide on. There has been great discussion and concern about spoilt papers. As I have said, and as my right honourable friend said in another place, although that is a matter for the returning officers we think it would be unwise to comment upon it until we have the final tally. I am absolutely prepared to give an undertaking that these figures will be released once we have that tally.
	On criticism of the Government about postal votes, and for not allowing enough time for those to be sent out effectively, their timetable is set by local returning officers. E-counting has clearly not gone as smoothly as anyone would have wished; that will also be an important aspect of the Electoral Commission's report.
	Again, we cannot give precise figures at the moment on the spoilt ballot papers. There is a figure of 100,000 going around, but there is just a feeling—one to be confirmed or otherwise by the Electoral Commission—that that is rather high. We have no details yet of the local government ballot papers, so again it is best to wait to see what the actual figures are. On the high incidence of spoilt papers, I must underline that the Electoral Commission is impartial and can get an independent element into the review if so needed. If there is concern about the Electoral Commission, I should say that it can and will get independent, impartial advice within its review.
	I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. The combined poll issue will form part of the Electoral Commission's review, and the Government will consider carefully what is said on all points once that is available. I am afraid that we cannot comment on individual poll results, as there may be the possibility of further action. I hope that answers the major points that have been raised.

Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Statement, but I am disappointed by a number of aspects of it. First, I find it incomprehensible that some six days after an election we are not yet in a position to know the final tally of figures. It is the first election for 30-odd years, or nearly 40, at which I have not been present; had I had any involvement, I certainly would have been demanding that these figures be provided before the lights were put out in the counting stations. That point should be taken on board.
	Secondly, none of us has any faith whatever in the Electoral Commission. Its ability to get behind the system in electoral politics seems almost the equivalent of a Chinese bureaucrat—a mandarin looking at a complex problem—who has a solution that does not necessarily bear any connection with reality.
	Thirdly, on the counting of the papers, and the spoilt ones, as far as I can see there was no consideration given to a consistent approach to the issue. One would have thought otherwise, given the possibility for complexity—and I speak as a first past the post person, for I like the British electoral system when it is simple, with a result where you can kick up hell if you get beaten, knowing at the end of the day that you must wait four years to really solve that. It is extremely naive to assume that we would somehow have spoilt papers of the order of 0.1 or 0.2 per cent, as we would in a general election. We who have participated in general elections all know that the spoilt papers come at the very end. Most people are tired—the victors are elated and the defeated usually sickened—and not in a position to make rational judgments. Although the returning officer may only start work at 10 o'clock on election night, the rest of us have had rather a busy period before that and are probably too tired. Yet there is no excuse for abdicating responsibility and saying, "We'll just set them aside".
	This was a disgrace and an embarrassment that lays grave questions on the competence of the officials who gave advice to hapless Ministers, who acted upon it in all good faith. I blame not the Ministers but the system, and I worry terribly that the same incompetents are to be required to report on themselves.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful—I think—to my noble friend for his comments. He regards it as a scandal and a disaster that spoilt ballot papers have not been counted several days after the election, but I have said that we will come back to that once we know the tally. We do not know it, and there is no point in noble Lords getting up and complaining about it when that reality confronts us today. As I have said, that issue must and will be looked into and the figures will be passed on.
	I must protest and disagree with my noble friend's views on the Electoral Commission, which I have worked with for a number of years. It is independent and quite brilliant in the work that it does. Section 5 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requires the Electoral Commission to review the conduct of each parliamentary election. It can involve external elements in reviewing an area where it feels that any previous involvement on its part—real or perceived—could prejudice its impartiality. I call on noble Lords to have confidence in the Electoral Commission; I am convinced that, when it reports, it will deal with all the problems that we have been talking about this afternoon, and that we will then be able to learn from what has happened and move on.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, the Statement that we have just heard was quite disgraceful. I have never seen so much buck-passing. It was the Government who introduced devolution and a different system for every set of elections in Scotland, and the Government must carry responsibility for this absolute scandal. With 100,000 people disfranchised, surely the issue we should be talking about is not whether the Electoral Commission should report, but whether we should rerun the election from start to finish. Hundreds of people have been disfranchised in their constituencies; the Minister has come here to say that we do not actually know how many spoilt ballot papers there were, when I heard them being declared—two thousand here, a thousand there—in constituencies where the majorities were tiny.
	This is a huge democratic scandal that has reduced Scotland to a status that no self-respecting banana republic would have regarding its democratic procedures, and the Government must take responsibility. For the Secretary of State to make such a Statement shows that the Government have no idea of the anger and resentment in Scotland because of bungling by Ministers who will no longer take responsibility for the consequences of their own policy.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, says but, first, we are talking about a Statement on which noble Lords are invited to ask questions—not, in my view, to deliver an answer to a Statement to which the noble Lord did not enjoy listening.
	Things have gone wrong. We are determined to find out why, and we feel that the Electoral Commission will do that for us. If there is the need for further inquiries after that then, as I have said, we will put those in place. I feel that the noble Lord is being most unfair to my right honourable friend in another place who, in my view, gave a Statement that accurately describes what has happened and said what was going to be done about it. We all need to learn from the unfortunate events of 3 May, and move on. I hope that all noble Lords will be able to move on with the Electoral Commission, once it gives its independent report.

Noble Lords: My Lords—

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is the Liberals' turn.

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I begin by joining in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on his election to the Scottish Parliament. There were three of us from this House in the first Parliament; he is now the only one. We wish him well, although we will miss his habitual trenchant criticism of Her Majesty's Government in this House.
	Seriously, my criticism of the Statement is that its tone did not seem to echo the gravity of what people feel went wrong in Scotland. I have spent considerable time in my retirement advising Parliaments and political parties and monitoring elections overseas. I do not know how I will be able to show my face in Africa in future, where I have seen counts conducted with chalk on the floor of a village school with much greater efficiency and accuracy than happened with our sophisticated system in Scotland. It is an acute embarrassment and a matter of public anger that so many votes were discounted. The tone of the Statement did not reflect that.
	I also appeal for a proper, quick, independent inquiry into what went wrong for two reasons: not just because, as my noble friend said, some of those matters were the responsibility of the Electoral Commission but also because some of them were not. They fell outside its remit. The fact that the two elections were held together was not its responsibility.
	Postal votes were decided by returning officers, not by the Electoral Commission. The Minister may want to know that my noble friend Lord Kirkwood was one of the many people who got a postal ballot paper for the wrong ward. Why was that allowed to be contracted out to firms that did not know the local geography? That is extraordinary. It was not the decision of the Electoral Commission; nor was the introduction of the counting machines. There is a compelling case for having a proper, genuinely independent inquiry, whatever the Electoral Commission may do internally.
	The Minister said that he does not know the actual number of spoilt ballot papers although, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, we all heard them announced constituency by constituency. We have not yet been told how many spoilt papers there were in the local government ballot. It is a paradox that under the single transferable vote system for local government, there were far fewer spoilt papers than in the first- past-the-post ballot papers for the Scottish Parliament. As the ballot papers were modelled on those in New Zealand, I wonder whether we have any information about the number of spoilt ballot papers there. I suspect that it is more to do with the design of the ballot paper than the compilation of the paper in principle.
	My fundamental point is that there must be a proper, independent inquiry and the Government must accept that.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, for his comments. An independent inquiry is exactly what the law requires. That is why the commission will conduct its review. It is the body charged with doing that work. Here we are, three or four days away from those elections. The Secretary of State has moved very quickly to get the Electoral Commission on board to do exactly what the noble Lord wants it to do, which attacks all the problems that arose last week. If the report is not satisfactory, the way is left open for further review. Although I take on board the noble Lord's point that the Statement may not have underlined the gravity of the situation, it was absolutely clear from the debate in the other place taken in the whole, including the contributions from Front-Benchers and Back-Benchers, that it is seen as a very grave situation and one that must be addressed.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords—

Viscount Waverley: My Lords—

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is the Cross-Benchers' turn, and then the Government's turn.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, after electoral chaos in Scotland, past postal fraud in Birmingham and even dead people turning up to vote in years gone by in Wallasey, could we have less preaching by the Government, specifically to Nigeria in its handling of the recent presidential round, and concentrate on subtle diplomacy?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, that is a little way from the purpose of the Statement, but it is a point that we note.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, will my noble friend reflect that one of the main reasons that we have landed in this mess is that he has listened to the siren call that independent commissions can do the job better than the Government? Is it not about time that the Government took responsibility and faced up to the fact that criticism may be made on a partisan basis? On e-counting, will he reflect on the old story about computers: put garbage in and you get garbage out?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, it is a little too late for my noble friend to say that the Government should take responsibility for these matters. We are talking about a devolved country that, first, makes its own decisions and, secondly, has returning officers who, in two of the crucial areas that we have been discussing, decide what happens and how things are planned. Obviously, the Government have an important role to play. We are playing it, but it must be played with the help of other actors in this matter.

Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I mention a past interest as an MSP in the Scottish Parliament for the past eight years. For clarity, I confirm that a Motion was tabled before the Scottish Parliament by the Conservatives to have the council elections on a different day, on the grounds that otherwise it could and would lead to confusion. There is considerable anecdotal evidence that people put crosses when they should have put numerals and possibly vice versa.
	The Minister has fairly pointed out that the timing of elections was a devolved responsibility. If the Electoral Commission makes strong representations, will he be prepared to take them forward? If they relate to devolved responsibilities, will he be prepared to take them forward with the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament, who is about to be elected, and the Scottish Executive, who will be elected before long?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we have asked the Electoral Commission to consider all those matters and report back to us. I assume that if the Electoral Commission and independent advisers make powerful points about what has gone wrong and the reasons for it, the Scottish Executive and the Government will take great note of what is said. It is a serious matter that must be sorted out and solved. The Government are in no way trying to say anything different. Constructive views from the Electoral Commission will be considered very carefully.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, of the three areas of focus mentioned in the Statement, I seek assurances on two. One is the e-counting machines. I understand very well the reasons for using them for the local elections: because of STV, it was thought necessary and a good idea to have e-counting machines. But for the parliamentary elections, I really do not understand why we could not have had manual counting. The parliamentary elections had not changed in any form, people were used to them, and we could have had manual counting. The only reason that I have heard given for having e-counting machines for all the elections is expense. Can my noble friend assure me that, in the light of what has happened, manual counting for the parliamentary elections will be reconsidered?
	One of the real problems that led to so many voters voting inappropriately on the parliamentary ballot paper and thereby invalidating it was not so much because it was all on one ballot paper, but because of the instructions at the top of the ballot paper, which stated in very heavy print, "You have two votes". Some people put two crosses in one column and none in the other, thereby completely invalidating their paper. Not just the question of whether there should have been one ballot paper but the question of what instructions go on the ballot paper should be carefully examined.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, all the matters raised by my noble friend will be carefully looked at. The paradox of the e-counting machines is that they were so widely tested before the elections yet went wrong on the night. That will need to be looked into because they were validated—and I can hear the Luddites having a good laugh at the back. For those of us who know a bit about computers, that is a very strange occurrence. I can assure my noble friend that all the points looked at will be considered. I have to say that Hansard from both Houses will be of great value to the Electoral Commission as it starts its inquiries and considers its agenda.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, considering the chaos of those elections, can the Minister assure us that these stupid systems and practices will not be translated into the English parliamentary system?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, unfortunately I do not have the authority to give that undertaking, but it sounds a bit unlikely.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, from what I have derived from last Thursday's events, an all- elected House of Lords is rather less likely than it might have been beforehand. More seriously, I shall attempt to bridge the divide that is going to open up between the Government's view that this should be left to the Electoral Commission and the cries for a fully independent commission. Surely we can bridge that divide by instructing the Electoral Commission to include some non-executive directors—some independent members. That would, to some extent, disarm the criticism that they are the guards looking after themselves.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, that is an interesting point and I will ask my right honourable friend to consider it and discuss it with officials in the Electoral Commission.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, there is some talk of the election being rerun. Will the Minister confirm that that is definitely not expected?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, two voices have mentioned that possibility—one in the other place this afternoon and one here. The Government and the Scottish Executive do not feel that that is sensible.

Legal Services Bill [HL]

Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
	Clause 141 [Duties to share information]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 384:
	Clause 141, page 74, line 2, leave out from "to" to "approved" in line 5 and insert "the need to ensure that, so far as reasonably practicable—
	( ) duplication of investigations is avoided;( ) the OLC assists"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 385 and 386. These amendments relate to the important provisions in Clause 141 on information sharing. Similar amendments were raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and my noble friend Lady Henig on behalf of the Law Society. Although I felt at the time that the wording of the amendment raised at that stage was not appropriate for the Bill, I was persuaded by the importance of the intended effect. As a result, we have worked closely with the Law Society to return with these amendments.
	I am happy to report that they represent a solution that both the Law Society and the Government are satisfied with. I hope that noble Lords too will be satisfied. It is of vital importance to the regulatory and complaints-handling framework that approved regulators and the OLC work in co-operation. I am confident that these amendments will facilitate that.
	Amendments Nos. 384 and 385 will strengthen the LSB's duties when specifying the requirements which the OLC and approved regulators must meet when drawing up their rules on information sharing. The LSB will now have to have regard to the need to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that the OLC and approved regulators, in sharing information, assist one another to perform their function. This elevation of "desirability" to "need" seems more appropriately to reflect the importance of the consideration that the LSB should give to these arrangements.
	Amendment No. 386 will require the OLC and approved regulators to consult each other prior to submission of rules or arrangements for LSB approval and to require that if there are unresolved disagreements, these are reported to LSB when the rules or regulatory arrangements are submitted for approval. This reflects the particular relevance of these matters to the relationship between the OLC and approved regulators and will encourage the OLC and approved regulators to reach a consensus on what information should be shared and how, and will therefore further facilitate a co-operative relationship.
	Amendment No. 386 covers much the same ground as Amendment No. 387, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Given the Law Society's agreement on Amendment No. 386, the noble Lord may want to reflect on that when we get to his group of amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward these amendments to Clause 141 and for her explanation for doing so. We accept the superior drafting of the government Amendment No. 386 to our own Amendment No. 387 and are delighted to see that the obligation for the OLC to consult approved regulators before publishing its scheme rules will be put on a statutory basis. It is right that both sides should co-operate as far as possible and identify to the board any part of the proposed rules where they have disagreed. We welcome these amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 385 and 386:
	Clause 141, page 74, line 6, leave out "of approved regulators assisting" and insert "approved regulators assist"
	Clause 141, page 74, line 9, at end insert—
	"( ) The OLC must—
	(a) before publishing under section 195(2) a draft of rules it proposes to make under subsection (1), consult each approved regulator to which the proposed rules apply, and(b) when seeking the Board's consent to such rules under section 152, identify any objections made by an approved regulator to the rules and not withdrawn.
	( ) An approved regulator must—
	(a) consult the OLC before making provisions in its regulatory arrangements of the kind mentioned in subsection (2), and(b) where an application is made for the Board's approval of such provisions, identify any objections made by the OLC to the provisions and not withdrawn."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 387 not moved.]
	Clause 146 [Enforcement of requirements to provide information or produce documents]:
	[Amendment No. 388 not moved.]
	Clause 149 [Disclosure of restricted information]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 389 and 390:
	Clause 149, page 78, line 29, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 149, page 78, line 31, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 152 [Consent requirements for rules]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 391:
	Clause 152, page 79, line 14, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 154 [Interpretation of Part 6]:

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendments Nos. 392 and 393:
	Clause 154, page 79, line 38, at end insert "unless in relation to a complaint which is determined by an approved regulator pursuant to a direction made under section (Handling of complaints by approved regulator)"
	Clause 154, page 80, line 4, at end insert "and except as permitted by subsection (1)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 394:
	Clause 154, page 80, line 19, at end insert ", or
	(c) provision which by virtue of section (Regulatory arrangements not prohibited by section 154) is not prohibited by this section."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 395:
	After Clause 154, insert the following new Clause—
	"Regulatory arrangements not prohibited by section 154
	(1) Section 154 does not prohibit the regulatory arrangements of an approved regulator from making provision requiring, or authorising the approved regulator to require, a relevant authorised person—
	(a) to investigate whether there are any persons who may have a claim against the relevant authorised person in relation to a matter specified by the approved regulator;(b) to provide the approved regulator with a report on the outcome of the investigation;(c) to identify persons ("affected persons") who may have such a claim;(d) to notify affected persons that they may have such a claim;(e) to provide affected persons with information about the relevant authorised person's complaints procedures and the ombudsman scheme;(f) to ensure that the relevant authorised person's complaints procedures operate as if an affected person had made a complaint against the relevant authorised person in respect of the act or omission to which the claim relates.
	(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) "claim", in relation to a relevant authorised person, means a claim for redress resulting from an act or omission of that person.
	(3) For the purposes of this section—
	(a) "relevant authorised person", in relation to an approved regulator, means a person authorised by that approved regulator to carry on an activity which is a reserved legal activity, and(b) a relevant authorised person's complaints procedures are the procedures established by that person, or which that person participates in or is subject to, in accordance with regulatory arrangements made in accordance with section 109.
	(4) This section applies in relation to the Board in its capacity as a licensing authority as it applies in relation to an approved regulator, and in relation to the Board references to regulatory arrangements are to be read as references to the Board's licensing rules."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 155 [Legal Services Complaints Commissioner and Legal Services Ombudsman]:

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: moved Amendment No. 396:
	Clause 155, page 80, line 26, leave out "offices" and insert "office"

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, there is a weakness in the Bill in respect of the power of the claimant or respondent to review decisions made by either the OLC or the approved regulator. The Bill allows only for judicial review. That is costly and, in many cases, would prohibit or prevent any review taking place.
	In addition, because complaints can contain elements relating to the service or misconduct or negligence, a complaint will have a determination of all matters by the OLC ombudsman. At the same time, before or after that decision, a further decision may be made by the approved regulator of the elements of misconduct and/or negligence.
	Those decisions could be at odds with each other and result in two judgments being made against the respondent which would bring about a double jeopardy. There is a further problem: the ombudsman could award redress of up to £20,000 for misconduct or negligence and the approved regulator may not find that there has been a breach of its rules. As such, the respondent ought to have the power to have the ombudsman's decision reviewed other than by means of a judicial review. The amendment was therefore tabled to provide an independent avenue for review of decisions taken by either the ombudsman or the approved regulator. I hope that the amendment is self-evidently sensible and that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, by virtue of Clause 137(4), an ombudsman's determination becomes final and binding if accepted by a complainant. This is one of the cornerstones of the new scheme that we are putting in place. It provides complainants and respondents with the certainty that they are entitled to—a clear end to the complaints process. If the amendments to allow for an independent review were accepted, an ombudsman's determination would no longer be final, and neither complainants nor respondents would have the necessary certainty. This is not only our view, but the view of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association. As we, and it, have said, complainants do not have to accept the determination of the ombudsman. They are always free to reject that decision and to institute court proceedings. It would therefore be wrong to have an independent reviewer able to second-guess the ombudsman.
	As explained in Committee, we envisage that there will be several internal reviews of a complaint before it is passed to an ombudsman for a final determination. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that the amendments arose because the Government had,
	"failed to replace the position of the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner and of the Legal Services Ombudsman".—[Official Report, 21/2/07; col. 1164.]
	However, although of course the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner and the Legal Services Ombudsman fulfil a valuable role under the present system, there is no need to create these roles under the new system that we are putting in place. At present, consumers need there to be some independent oversight of the way in which the professional bodies handle complaints. This is because those consuming the services do not necessarily have confidence in a profession that is seen to be judging itself. That is not, however, the system that we are creating.
	The amendments assume that the ombudsman scheme will work in the same way as the current complaints handling system, and so would require an appeals mechanism to an independent person. I hope it is clear, however, that the Office for Legal Complaints and the ombudsman are independent. The chairman of the OLC is a lay person, as is the chief ombudsman. Other ombudsmen cannot be practising lawyers, and every ombudsman is explicitly required to be appointed under terms that will guarantee independence. Ombudsmen's decisions should be final. If there were appeals, the certainty that we are seeking to create would be lost. That would not be good for consumers or the professions. We are creating a system that we hope is quick and fair and that, crucially, has a certain conclusion to the process. It is a new system, and so does not work like the current one. There is therefore no need to recreate the roles that we had before. I ask that the amendment is withdrawn.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I have heard the words of the Minister, and I thank her for considering further a matter that was considered at some length in Committee. I remain concerned that she has not fully answered my point about the possibility of there being a conflict between the redress awarded by the ombudsman and the regulator finding no breach of the rules. However, in the light of what she has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 397 to 399 not moved.]

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 400:
	Before Clause 158, insert the following new Clause—
	"Board's general duty to consult
	The Board must make and maintain effective arrangements for consulting representatives of practitioners and consumers on the extent to which its general policies and practices are consistent with its duty under section 3."

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 400 and 401 have been brought back from Committee. They would impose a general duty on the Legal Services Board to consult—a duty that, as your Lordships are aware, is otherwise absent from the Bill. In our brief exchange on this matter in March, the Minister agreed that,
	"it is essential that the board consults on important points of policy and the framework under which it operates".—[Official Report, 6/3/07; cols. 148-49.]
	She concluded that it was an unnecessary amendment as the Bill already imposed enough specific duties to consult. At least part of her justification for her approach was that Clauses 8 to 11 already require the board to consult consumers, while her affirmation that she had accepted in principle what was then Amendment No. 38 meant that there would be a similar requirement to consider representations from approved regulators.
	Her acceptance in principle has unfortunately not translated into acceptance on paper, so the Bill imposes no general obligation on the board to consider representations from the professional bodies. This is just one of the reasons why the overarching duty to consult proposed by Amendment No. 400 would be so desirable.
	Nevertheless, the other important arguments still remain. Accepting the amendments would add to some of the changes that noble Lords have already made to the Bill by reaffirming the board's role as a light-touch regulator by ensuring that the regulators would still have as much of a say as possible and by listening to the recommendations of Sir David Clementi. The Minister was reasonably receptive to these arguments in Committee. As what was Amendment No. 38 now looks unlikely to find its way into the Bill, perhaps she might consider these amendments more warmly. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I strongly agree with my noble friend. It might be helpful if the Minister gave us a more detailed explanation of what has been going on behind the scenes. She gave us such a clear commitment in Committee, particularly with regard to Amendment No. 38, but that commitment seemed to disappear somewhere. Either she has been got at in some way that has not yet penetrated the consciousness of the Chamber, or she has changed her mind. In either case, we need an explanation. Amendment No. 400 seems to accord so much with the argument that the Minister previously accepted that it is surely right that there should be a general duty to consult practitioners and consumers on the extent to which the Legal Services Board ensures that its general policies and practices are consistent with its duties in Section 3. Amendment No. 401 lays down a reasonable structure within which the board's general duty to consult would be exercised, and it is very difficult to understand why this is no longer as acceptable as it was. Perhaps the Minister has a convincing explanation, but we have not heard it yet. We await her response with eagerness and anticipation.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord awaits my response with eagerness and anticipation, but I am not entirely convinced that I will convince him of my argument. Let me describe the general context of Amendment No. 38, which we have discussed. It is absolutely right to say that I took the amendment away and considered the principle behind it, although I did not accept the amendment on the day on which we discussed it because it would have ensured that the Bill afforded consumers and the professions equal treatment. I think that noble Lords broadly accepted that putting in a consumer panel recognised that there was no coherent body representing consumers that would have the necessary force in the legislation but that there were organisations in the professions that had that coherent voice.
	I took it away to consult officials and we went through the Bill. Having done so, I contend that the Bill affords, in equal weight, opportunities for the professions to have their voices heard, either because they are, as noble Lords know, well organised, well funded and very well established bodies, conversant in the art of putting forward their views; or, indeed, because the legislation itself requires that they are consulted at various points. It is not that I do not accept the principle behind what I said, but we believe that the Bill already does it. Noble Lords may disagree with that; that is for noble Lords to determine. There is nothing behind the scenes, as such. On examination, it was our view that we had achieved what was wanted. That is why I have not brought forward another amendment.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, it might be of great assistance to the House if the Minister could indicate where in the Bill she found this general duty to consult. I have not yet found any such provision. This is now such a huge Bill, with so many government amendments, that there may well be hidden away something that would satisfy us, but I have not yet found it.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I think the noble Lord knows that there are specific requirements in different parts of the Bill which mean that consultation is necessary on particular issues. I cannot win on this. The Government bring forward amendments in order to respond; indeed, a number of amendments are specifically designed to support issues raised by the Law Society. A lot of them are very small, technical changes, but none the less important. That is why there appear to be many more amendments than usual.
	Noble Lords will, I have no doubt, return to this issue at Third Reading, but that is my explanation. I shall deal with one particular point raised in the amendments. I have indicated that there are sufficient opportunities. Clause 3 specifically requires the board to have regard to key principles, including any other principle that appears to represent the best regulatory practice. In line with best regulatory practice—for example, the Better Regulation Executive's code of practice on consultation—the board should consider representations made, especially if they come from those affected by its function. The code of practice does not require us to set out consultation provisions in legislation, but it sets out a number of principles of best practice. They include: identifying the relevant interested parties and those likely to be affected by the policy; providing feedback on responses and how they have influenced the policy; and paying particular attention to representative bodies, such as business associations and trade unions.
	Given the requirement that the board follows best practice in respect of consultation, we should not have to set out in legislation practice which could become outdated and irrelevant as we move forward and become more detailed about the kind of consultation we wish to see. I do not want to narrow the focus of the board's consultation, which I fear the amendment might if we were to limit the board's consultation to the extent that its general policies and practice are consistent with its duty under Section 3, or the degree to which the board's proposed activities are appropriately targeted, and whether or not the proposed programme of work is proportionate.
	Instead, I submit that the combination of Clause 3 and the provisions that must be followed in respect of representation is the best approach. This would include the requirement for the board to have regard to any representations made to it in respect of policy statements, covered by Clause 49, rules made under the Bill, covered by Clause 195, and ensure that consumers and the profession have the opportunity to influence decisions by the board. The principles that I have outlined would also apply to any work plan, but it is not necessary to put a duty in the Bill.
	The board is also under a duty, in Clause 3, to ensure that its activities are targeted and used only where appropriate and necessary. This, along with the duty for the board's accounts to be laid before Parliament, provides sufficient financial accountability. I hope this explanation suffices and that the noble Lord is able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her response, though, as she might imagine, somewhat disappointed. I refer first to Amendment No. 38. In our discussion on that earlier in the Report stage, I asserted that the noble Baroness had given an unequivocal undertaking to incorporate Amendment No. 38 into the Bill. The noble Baroness begged to differ and was going to look at the matter and come back to the House at Third Reading. Of course, we still await her explanation of what she has decided to do about the amendment.
	The purpose behind Amendment No. 38 has some influence over the amendment that we are discussing now. From what the noble Baroness says, I understand that she is reluctant to place Amendment No. 400 in the Bill. Nevertheless, her explanation for not wishing to do so appears to be that, in effect, the Bill already says what Amendment No. 400 states. Can I therefore take it that the Minister's interpretation of the Bill is that the board is obliged to make and maintain effective arrangements for consulting representatives of practitioners and consumers, on the extent to which its general policies and practices are consistent with its duty under Clause 53?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, yes.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am much obliged. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 401 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 402 to 404:
	After Clause 159, insert the following new Clause—
	"Power to establish voluntary scheme for resolving complaints
	(1) This section and section (Operation of voluntary scheme) provide for a scheme under which legal services complaints may be resolved quickly and with minimum formality by an independent person.
	(2) The OLC may make rules ("voluntary scheme rules") establishing such a scheme ("the voluntary scheme"), but only in relation to such kinds of legal services complaints as may be specified by order made by the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of this section.
	(3) An order under subsection (2) may in particular specify a kind of legal services complaint by reference to the description of the complainant, of the respondent, or of the legal services to which the complaint relates.
	(3) "Legal services complaint" means a complaint which relates to an act or omission of an eligible person ("the respondent") in the course of that person providing legal services.
	(4) For that purpose a person is eligible if at the time the act or omission took place there was no activity in relation to which the person—
	(a) was an authorised person, or(b) is to be regarded as having been such a person by virtue of section 126.
	(5) Under the voluntary scheme—
	(a) redress may be provided to the complainant, but(b) no disciplinary action may be taken against the respondent.
	(6) Voluntary scheme rules may confer functions on ombudsmen for the purposes of the voluntary scheme.
	(7) Section 128 applies for the purposes of the voluntary scheme as it applies for the purposes of the ombudsman scheme.
	(8) Sections 152 and 153 apply in relation to voluntary scheme rules as they apply in relation to scheme rules.
	(9) In this section—
	"legal services" means services provided by a person which consist of or include legal activities carried on by, or on behalf of, that person;
	"the voluntary scheme" and "voluntary scheme rules" have the meaning given by subsection (2)."
	After Clause 159, insert the following new Clause—
	"Procedure for making orders under section (Power to establish voluntary scheme for resolving complaints)
	(1) The Lord Chancellor may make an order under section (Power to establish voluntary scheme for resolving complaints)(2) only on the recommendation of an interested body.
	(2) An interested body must, if requested to do so by the Lord Chancellor, consider whether or not it is appropriate to make a recommendation for such an order.
	(3) An interested body must, before making a recommendation for such an order—
	(a) publish a draft of the proposed recommendation,(b) invite representations regarding the proposed recommendation, and(c) consider any such representations which are made.
	(4) Where the Lord Chancellor receives a recommendation from an interested body for an order under section (Power to establish voluntary scheme for resolving complaints)(2), the Lord Chancellor must consider whether to follow the recommendation.
	(5) If the Lord Chancellor decides not to follow the recommendation, the Lord Chancellor must publish a notice to that effect which includes the Lord Chancellor's reasons for the decision.
	(6) In this section "interested body" means—
	(a) the OLC,(b) the Board, or(c) the Consumer Panel."
	After Clause 159, insert the following new Clause—
	"Operation of voluntary scheme
	(1) A complaint may be determined under the voluntary scheme only if—
	(a) the complainant falls within a class of persons specified in voluntary scheme rules as qualified to make a complaint,(b) the complainant wishes to have the complaint dealt with under the scheme,(c) at the time of the act or omission to which the complaint relates, the respondent was participating in the scheme and voluntary scheme rules were in force in relation to the legal services in question, and(d) at the time the complaint is made under the scheme the respondent has not withdrawn from the scheme in accordance with its provisions.
	(2) A person qualifies for participation in the voluntary scheme if the person falls within a class of persons specified as qualified in voluntary scheme rules.
	(3) In such circumstances as may be specified in voluntary scheme rules, a complaint may be dealt with under the voluntary scheme even though subsection (1)(c) would otherwise prevent that.
	(4) Subsection (3) applies only if the respondent participates in the voluntary scheme on the basis that complaints of that kind are to be dealt with under the scheme.
	(5) Complaints are to be dealt with and determined under the voluntary scheme on standard terms fixed by the OLC with the consent of the Board.
	(6) The OLC may modify standard terms only with the consent of the Board.
	(7) Section 194(3) applies to standard terms as it applies to rules made by the OLC.
	(8) The standard terms may in particular make provision—
	(a) requiring the making of payments to the OLC by persons participating in the scheme of such amounts, at such times and in such circumstances, as may be determined by the OLC;(b) as to the award of costs on the determination of a complaint (including provision for an award of costs in favour of the OLC for the purpose of providing a contribution to resources deployed in dealing with the complaint).
	(9) In this section "legal services", "the voluntary scheme" and "voluntary scheme rules" have the same meaning as in section (Power to establish voluntary scheme for resolving complaints.)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 161 [Disclosure of restricted information]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 405 and 406:
	Clause 161, page 84, line 9, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 161, page 84, line 11, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 162 [Disclosure of information to the Board]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 407 and 408:
	Clause 162, page 84, line 35, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 162, page 84, line 36, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 165 [Funding]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 409 to 412:
	Clause 165, page 85, line 16, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 165, page 85, line 17, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 165, page 85, line 22, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 165, page 85, line 25, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 413:
	After Clause 165, insert the following new Clause—
	"Establishment costs
	(1) The Secretary of State shall pay to the Board, and to the OLC, such sums as the Secretary of State may determine to be the costs falling within subsection (2) incurred by each of them in connection with the establishment of the Board and of the OLC respectively.
	(2) Costs fall within this subsection if they are incurred—
	(a) before the passing of this Act, or (b) after the passing of this Act but before the last day appointed under section 201(2) in respect of any of sections 2, 111 and 119.
	(3) There shall be met out of monies provided by Parliament any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with the establishment of the Board or of the OLC."

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, this amendment and those associated with it are designed to ensure that the Government meet the start-up costs of the Legal Services Board and a proportion of its running costs. As noble Lords are only too well aware, the Legal Services Bill is currently drafted on the basis that the whole cost of the regulatory structure, including the supervisory tier—the Legal Services Board—should be borne by the legal profession.
	We accept that the profession should meet the full cost of the first tier of regulation; that is to say, the work of the approved regulators and the Office for Legal Complaints. However, the costs of the supervisory tier are another matter. The supervisory tier serves a purpose distinct from that of the front-line bodies. The regulatory structure could work perfectly well without a Legal Services Board. The approved regulators, having separated their representative arms from their regulatory arms, could simply be left to get on with the task. The Government have decided, following Sir David Clementi's advice, to create a supervisory tier, the Legal Services Board, to provide a check on front-line regulators, to promote consistency and to resolve disagreements where necessary.
	The board, provided it operates as a "light-touch" supervisor, may well discharge a useful function; but the Government's decision to require the legal profession to meet the whole cost of the Legal Services Board is unreasonable.
	Sir David Clementi said:
	"The issue arises as to how the LSB should be paid for. At present a substantial part of the oversight function is paid for by the State: judicial oversight falls to the taxpayer, as does the cost of the oversight function carried out by Government departments. The arguments in favour of the Government contributing to the cost of oversight functions beyond the fact that it does already are ... that the LSB, in pursuit of its objectives ... such as 'access to justice' has a wider role in the public interest than the oversight of practitioners in the legal sector; and that an element of payment by other than the bodies being regulated confirms that the regulator is independent of the regulatee".
	He adds:
	"There is an interesting precedent in the proposed funding of the Financial Reporting Council. Its funding is to be split, two thirds falling to the private sector and one third to Government. How the split should be made between the private sector and Government for the LSB would need to be covered in statute and would, therefore, be the subject of Parliamentary scrutiny".
	As Sir David Clementi points out, the Government meet one-third of the cost of the Financial Reporting Council. The Government also meet the full cost of the supervisory tier of healthcare regulation, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence. The Government have given no adequate explanation of why they consider it appropriate to meet part of the supervisory tier of regulation in the accountancy field, but not in respect of legal services. So far as the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence is concerned, the Government have suggested that it is appropriate to pay because it is important to demonstrate that the CHRE is independent of the medical profession. But that argument applies at least as strongly to the Legal Services Board, which needs to be demonstrably independent of the Government and of the legal profession.
	One function of the Legal Services Board will be to consider whether additional legal services should come within the regulatory net. This function is currently carried out within government. It does not form part of the regulation of legal services and is carried out entirely in the public interest, rather than in the interest of providers of legal services. It is particularly unreasonable for the Government to expect those costs to be borne by the legal profession. The Joint Committee considered this issue and concluded that the legal profession should not be expected to finance public policy considerations currently funded by the Government.
	The Government's proposals would, in effect, transfer cost from the Government to the legal profession. The Government currently meet the costs of the Legal Services Ombudsman, whose functions will be absorbed in the Office for Legal Complaints, which will be funded exclusively by the legal profession, and part of the costs of the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner, whose post is also abolished by the Bill. The Government also meet the costs associated with the Legal Services Consultancy Panel, and the costs of the work in relation to legal services regulation of the Lord Chancellor and the senior judiciary. Continuing to contribute towards the cost of regulation would thus maintain the existing position, rather than represent a new spending commitment from the Government. The examples that the Government gave for regulators funded entirely by regulatees—the FSA, the FOS and the Pensions Regulator—are entirely beside the point. They are frontline regulators. We have no quarrel about that.
	Ensuring a continuing contribution from the Government might also act as a brake on any tendency of the Legal Services Board to expand its activities unjustifiably. There is an obvious risk that if the board can simply re-charge the cost to the approved regulators it will grow substantially beyond what the Government say that they envisage. It is important for the Government to have a financial incentive to ensure that the board operates as the light-touch supervisory body that they have so often said they wish to establish.
	It should also be recalled that this issue has to be seen in the light of the steadily increased estimate of the start-up and running costs of the board. The noble Baroness very generously did not need any probing to let us know that, yet again, last month's cost estimates for the establishment of the board have gone up. We are now talking of a sum of no less than £46 million, with annual running costs approaching £30 million. These figures are a far cry from the context in which Sir David Clementi was operating. At the time he reached his conclusions, the estimated start-up costs of the Legal Services Board were less than £10 million. So the changing financial picture ought to be a very convincing new component for the Government in changing their view about how this new system is to be financed. I beg to move.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I strongly support the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and adopt the reasoning that he has advanced. I supported the line of reasoning expressed in Committee and have few additional points to make. However, the public interest in the Legal Services Board's operating economically and effectively will be best discharged by the Government's direct interest being continued through the financial mechanism. If the body is established and passes its costs on to the consumers of legal services, the Government's continuing interest in maintaining the body in the form in which it has been described from the beginning will be put at grave risk.
	The Government have clearly departed from the advice of the Clementi report, particularly on start-up costs. It is not surprising that the estimates for these costs have risen since Sir David Clementi reported. The duties which the Bill imposes on the Legal Services Board are far reaching and are by no means consonant with the concept that the board would intervene only when something had gone wrong. It is creating a huge framework of supervision by the indicative policies that the Bill requires it to embark on. These changes may or may not be necessary; although I am persuadable that the Government are right in thinking that they are required, there are downside cost consequences.
	The second major point of principle, to which I think the amendments are addressed, is that the public have an interest in the delivery of justice in our society, which goes far beyond the ability of individuals to have access to justice. They have an interest in justice being done, being seen to be done and being available to all. The more expensive that this process of regulation becomes, the more inaccessible justice will be. If the professions have to bear the full costs, there will be no way of recouping them other than by increasing the cost of their services. I simply cannot understand why there is this belief that the proposal is in the consumer's interest. The danger is that ever more people will find that legal assistance and access to the courts and advice are beyond their means. The Bill could contribute to that if it does not share out the costs between the taxpayer and the professions.
	This is so much a point of principle that it does not seem capable of being dealt with other than by a direct rebuttal by the Government. I would find it difficult if the Government did not take the point. Costs are predicted to escalate although it may not be possible now to determine the precise amount. I cannot believe that the Minister has any expectation other than that the figures which have been produced are more than a base from which the costs will rise.
	I hope to get this Bill off to a proper flying start. As the Minister knows, I have been a supporter of the Bill and, like noble Lords on all sides of the House, believe that it is necessary. She will recognise that citizens—citizens, as opposed to petitioners to courts for redress regarding the non-delivery of services—have an interest in this being done appropriately. Citizens will be prepared to pay the price.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, during the 20th century the legal profession, particularly the solicitors, came more and more into direct contact with the masses of the population as distinct from merely the better off, the commercial enterprises and so on. That was encouraged by the Legal Aid and Advice Act which the Labour Government brought in soon after World War 2. The legal profession, and I mean both parts of it, has always professed that it must have in mind the interests of the public—citizens in general—and not just their clients. Its behaviour, codes of practice and professional conduct require that that should be so. As we know, however, the legal profession has not always in practice come up to the high standards professed in the codes of professional conduct and the codes that, at annual meetings and so on, it maintains that it has.
	I know that opposition parties do not agree fully with every aspect of the Bill but, bearing in mind the professions' deficiencies in dealing with complaints, it is difficult for them to suggest that the Bill's surveillance elements regarding the Legal Services Board are not required. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, distinguishes between the front-line regulators—which, as he would say, are properly paid for by the professions—and the Legal Services Board, which, on behalf of the public, ensures that it does a good job, or at least that is what it is meant to do. That is not a strong distinction. They are all needed. The surveillance of the Legal Services Board is needed because of the professions' recent history. It is in the public interest to ensure that the professional standards which the professions have maintained and stated they believe in over so many years are in fact and in practice maintained.
	It is rather difficult to argue that the people who use the services of lawyers should not pay for the work of the Legal Services Board as well as for the front-line regulators. I certainly do not see as a matter of principle the distinction drawn by noble Lords opposite on this matter. I recall certain connections with the regulation of the accountancy profession. I do not see any objection in principle to the fact that it does it by means of the Financial Reporting Council, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. There is a split, and some sort of split is desirable. I know that Sir David Clementi thought that that might be suitable in the legal profession.
	I stress that the Government's proposals are not out of the question or unprincipled in suggesting that those who need and have to pay for the services of lawyers should also pay, rather than the general taxpayer, for the provision of the surveillance of the Legal Services Board as well as for the front-line regulators.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has missed one of the key points in this debate: the whole issue of access to justice. That was why Sir David Clementi said that the Legal Services Board should have a wider remit in the public interest than just the oversight of the practitioners in the legal services sector. He also said—I felt persuasively—that to have a contribution from other than just the regulated would enable the regulator to demonstrate its independence from those it was regulating. If all its money came from the professions over which it had oversight, then issues such as access to justice and independence would not be seen as having the wider remit that the public would want.
	In demonstrating my support for the words of my noble friend Lord Kingsland, and also finding myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, I should also add that I am becoming increasingly concerned about the cost. When we last debated the Bill, on the second day of Report, we had just seen an extract from a report by Frances Gibb in the Times that the costs were escalating to a degree that none of us had really contemplated. In the Joint Select Committee, the estimate of costs was said to be, if I recall correctly, "at best speculative". But I do not think that any of us on the Joint Select Committee contemplated that they would double before the final figures were known. It might be helpful if the Minister could bring us up to date in particular on the start-up costs but also on the running costs. It is a little while since we saw that report.
	The Minister at least indicated that she shared our concerns about the costs suddenly running away from us in a way that would impinge on access to justice if the professions had to bear all those costs. Who is going to pay? The answer is that the consumer of legal services ultimately will pay through increased charges. I am very worried indeed about whether we have yet seen the final picture. When we last debated these issues, the noble Baroness said that she was taking a close look not only at the start-up costs but at the running costs as well. Now that we have this debate and a number like it this evening, it might be helpful if she could bring us up to date with where we are on the issue of costs so far as the Government are concerned.
	Finally, experience tells me that written in bold capital letters on the Minister's brief from the Treasury will be the word, "Resist". I have come to have considerable respect for the Minister and I know that she would ignore any such mandate if she felt that there was a case to be argued. I do not know whether she will let us in on what arguments may be going on with the Treasury behind the scenes, but my noble friend Lord Kingsland has made a very strong point in moving this amendment. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will not reject it out of hand.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have not had any conversations with the Treasury. I do have the word "Resist" written on my brief, but it is not from the Treasury. Indeed, we have been in consultation with the Treasury to do precisely what the noble Lord has invited me to do, which is to give an update on the costs. Noble Lords will recall that when we considered this issue on 16 April, I said that I was concerned to look at the figures reported by Frances Gibb in the Times, as well as to consider the further analysis undertaken with the Law Society and the Bar Council. Rather helpfully, those with whom we shared the figures raised different points that they wished us to reconsider, which I duly asked officials to do. I also asked my officials to give me figures that I could use this evening in order to set out for noble Lords the position as it currently stands.
	We have been looking to refine the implementation plans and to consider the amendments that have been made to the Bill, so it is absolutely right to reflect the current position by updating the costs. Noble Lords will recall that the original forecast by PricewaterhouseCoopers was £26.8 million. Following our further analysis, the figure now stands at £32 million, which takes into account inflation—that is, the costs are restated at 2007-08 prices—and includes VAT. It also reflects other adjustments which have led to decreases in costs in some areas and increases in others. In addition, in relation to the Office for Legal Complaints, we have assumed a year-on-year increase in the volume of complaints. That is based on an analysis of the compound annual growth rate of Law Society complaints, which account for approximately 96 per cent of the total annual volume of complaints. Building in this annual growth rate has impacted on both implementation and running costs, with the result that it is predicted that in 2007-08 the running costs are now predicted to be £19.9 million compared with the PricewaterhouseCoopers estimate of £16.8 million. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, specifically asked me for that figure. However, the revised figure still represents a saving on the current complaints-handling arrangements, costed by PricewaterhouseCoopers at £32.5 million in 2005.
	While the analysis we have carried out is robust and based on sound assumptions, any operation of this size involves risks, no matter how carefully planned and managed it may be, so we have put together a risk register. It is therefore prudent to build in a margin for unforeseen costs, and I have suggested that we build in a margin of 15 per cent, which is approximately £5 million. That is based on an analysis of the risks associated with the reform process and the costs that may accompany those risks. It is right and proper to cite a figure that takes into account all the risks of change. Although I do not anticipate the risks, they could include problems such as not being able to find appropriate premises. These are risks that we do not believe will be realised, but none the less have to be taken into account.
	We have also looked at the possibility of a spike in complaints volumes occurring two to three years after the introduction of the new scheme. We have analysed what has happened in comparable sectors and the evidence suggests a tendency towards a spike two to three years in. However, I emphasise that our forecasts already take into account a year-on-year increase, and of course the experience of different sectors does not necessarily read across. In addition, in practice we would expect to see economies of scale and a decrease in cost per complaint.
	It is obviously crucial that noble Lords and the legal professions have confidence in these figures, so I should like to emphasise that the adjustments which have been made are based on a robust analysis. What is more, I can confirm that the revised figure will now form the basis of the implementation budget for the new organisations when responsibility is handed to the new boards; that is, it will be the budget that they are given.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, these are important figures, and they are higher than those given in the regulatory impact assessment. Is the Minister planning to issue an updated regulatory impact assessment? If she were able to give us that assurance, it would go some way to meeting our concerns.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Yes, my Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance.
	Noble Lords will also want to know the detail of the adjustments that have been made. It may be helpful if I set out the position in writing as well as producing a revised RIA. I indicated previously that I would write, but noble Lords will know from our discussions on 16 April that I did not want to do so until I was convinced that the figures were robust. Indeed, I am grateful to our officials who have worked tirelessly during the past two weeks in order to drill down and make sure that the figures are right. Before Third Reading I shall write to noble Lords setting out the position in full, and that will include responses to questions raised by the professions about the position of VAT and double counting. We have been in contact with Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs and received the best advice on the VAT position. I shall set all this out in detail, which I hope will be useful. I am grateful to noble Lords for their patience in allowing me to get to this point, one where the figures are now more robust. Noble Lords will see that the estimate is a decrease from the figure I was talking about for the professions, and I hope that that is welcome. However, I appreciate that they will want to see the detail before agreeing that the figures are indeed robust. Finally, noble Lords should feel free to put any questions to me before we return to these issues at Third Reading.
	I turn now to the principle underlying the debates. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, put very well the concerns that have been raised on the issue of funding, but we remain convinced that it is entirely appropriate for the legal service providers to bear the costs of these reforms. Here I want to reiterate the basis of that conviction. I am glad to say that we have a thriving legal market with a turnover in 2005 of £22 billion. The legal professions have a privileged position as the providers of reserved legal services. I believe that confidence in the system will increase as a result of the demonstrably independent regulation and complaints handling procedures, and I believe that the legal professions will benefit from that. I also think that the opportunity created in the Bill for alternative business structures will be to their benefit. They will be significant beneficiaries, and on that basis the Government think it entirely right for the significant beneficiaries to pay for the reforms.
	I acknowledge that the Government will make some savings as a result of these reforms, but the job of government is to consider where to invest and what are the priorities. We believe that investment is most needed in other priority areas, particularly those where other sources of funding are not available. While I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan and Lord Kingsland, that the Legal Services Board plays a public interest role, I do not accept that that provides an argument in favour of a government contribution to costs. At present the legal professional bodies raise fees from their members not solely to pay for the cost of regulation. They also fund important public interest activities performed by those bodies. I cite, for example, participation in human rights and law reform work. The same approach should apply to all the functions which will support the new framework provided for in the Bill.
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and others discussed a number of comparisons, including the role of the Financial Reporting Council. I undertook to look at the funding arrangements for that organisation in more detail. The Financial Reporting Council's accounting, auditing and corporate governance activities are funded by a tripartite arrangement, funding received in equal proportions from the accountancy professions, the business community and the Government. Other costs, audit inspection, investigation and disciplining of accounts are funded entirely by the accountancy professions. However, the Government provide no funding in relation to actuaries. The FRC's funding arrangements in relation to its responsibilities for actuarial standards and regulation are as follows: 10 per cent from the profession, 45 per cent from the insurance companies and 45 per cent from the pension funds. As noble Lords would expect, I have also looked at the funding arrangements of a number of other regulatory bodies: the Financial Services Authority, the financial services ombudsman, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, the pensions regulator, the office of communication and the claims management regulator.
	That analysis highlights that there is no rigid approach in terms of government funding. There are cases where the Government fund establishment or running costs and cases where they do not. The decision in effect is taken on a case-by-case basis, but the Government's starting principle is that there should be no increase in public expenditure unless there is a compelling case for public funding. In this instance we do not believe that there is any such compelling argument. It is not inconsistent in terms of government policy to require the professions to pay. I know that the legal professions have argued that if the Government were making a contribution they would be incentivised to reduce costs. We are committed to ensuring value for money in these reforms and that is why we have built in the safeguards to ensure that. The levy rules are subject to the extensive consultation requirements, to the consent of the Lord Chancellor and to parliamentary scrutiny through the negative resolution procedure. Together these measures will ensure that the spending of the new bodies is properly contained.
	For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, the Bar Council and the Law Society have made certain observations about start-up and running costs. They say that new entrants to the profession will be adversely affected. Is she able to deal with that argument now?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have never heard the argument that new entrants will be affected in that way. Perhaps my noble friend and I might discuss that issue separately. Certainly I have set out the issues to do with the costs and I will do so in greater detail.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the quality of the debate on the amendment has been high even by the standards of the debates we have had on previous amendments throughout the course of the Bill. I was particularly thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, who made an exceptionally fine and demanding—from the Minister's point of view—intervention on behalf of our amendments. Although the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, sought to disagree with me he was at his most eloquent and my noble friend Lord Hunt has always found a certain amount of liquid in even the driest of water courses. I am most grateful to all of them.
	The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, rightly said that we should look at the role of the Legal Services Board in a context wider than that of the regulation of complaints. We on these Benches accept the establishment of the Legal Services Board but at no stage in the Bill's course have we sought to amend it so as to remove the board. We also accept that there are certain functions of the board in supervising the complaints system that should legitimately be financed by the professions. But the functions of the Legal Services Board go way beyond the complaints arena. My noble friend Lord Hunt dealt particularly vividly with the wider public interest. A number of other public regulatory organisations have both their start-up and their running costs supported by the Government. I can think of no public regulator of the sort that the Legal Services Board purports to be that is not in some form or other supported by the Government. Moreover, the authorised persons will have no control whatever over the number of additional functions that might be heaped on the board for which they will have to pay. There is nothing in the Bill that controls that process on their behalf.
	Moreover, a range of existing functions currently financed by the taxpayer will now be transferred and become a financial burden on the authorised users. The Government are a net beneficiary of that process. The legal profession will carry burdens in future that were formerly carried by the taxpayer. Given the scale of the costs that the profession is about to meet, that is, in my respectful submission, entirely unacceptable. Despite the noble Baroness's attempt at calming words, I find the situation entirely unacceptable. At this late hour we would probably be imprudent on both sides of the House to vote, but nevertheless I will give the noble Baroness a week longer to consider the position. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 166 [The levy]:
	[Amendment No. 414 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 415:
	Clause 166, page 85, line 36, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 416 not moved.]

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 417:
	Clause 166, page 85, line 40, at end insert—
	"( ) In apportioning or imposing a levy the Board shall have regard, inter alia, to—
	(a) the extent to which any resulting increase in the regulatory fees of a regulator will be reasonable and proportionate in comparison to the fees already levied on relevant regulated persons;(b) the extent to which the levy might discourage entry to or retention in the regulated sector;(c) the extent to which the number of persons regulated by a regulator might be reduced in consequence of the amount of the levy;(d) the extent to which the regulator might be disadvantaged and another regulator might derive an advantage, in particular through the movement between the regulators of regulated persons as a consequence of any differences in the levy imposed;(e) the likely ability of the regulator to raise the levy from regulated persons;(f) the impact of the levy on the regulator's viability."

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I can deal with this amendment telegraphically. The noble Baroness will recall that the two regulators concerned with patents and trademarks were especially concerned about the considerable financial burden of the levy and start-up costs. They believe that further safeguards should be put into the Bill and have proposed in the amendment the same wording that appeared in our previous Amendment No. 142A in Committee. I know that the noble Baroness has set her heart against a definition of proportionality in the Bill but nevertheless I hope that she will accept that the concerns expressed by the authorities, and the fears that flow from them, genuine. Even if she is not prepared to accept the amendment I hope that she will be prepared to provide powerful words of comfort instead.
	Amendment No. 433 concerns the issue that debt may be recovered only from the practising fees held by a regulator. Those were particular concerns of the patent and trademark regulators and although I do not hold out a great deal of hope that the noble Baroness might find a way of putting the amendment in the Bill I hope nevertheless that she can give me some reassurance. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's comments, particularly on Amendment No. 417. Proportionality is an important principle—it is an express principle in other parts of the Bill—and there are good reasons for applying it here. I hope the Minister will be able to give a positive response.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support this. Proportionality, yes, but in what context and in what sense? This truly gives guidance with legal efficacy, but there is no harm in that in this particular situation. Without that guidance, what is proportionality going to mean? I will not go on about this—it is getting late—but there is a good and important point in the amendment, which I support.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has brought this issue back again. I have already indicated that we have talked to the smaller regulators, because I understand their concerns. I said as well that I would look at what else we might be able to do on this issue to give them clarity and comfort about the situation.
	I said during the debate in Committee that the board must be satisfied that the apportionment of the levy would be in accordance with fair principles before making the rules, and I still firmly believe that that, rather than a list in the Bill of what would inevitably be a prescriptive list of factors, is the appropriate provision. Noble Lords will know that I have a general aversion to lists as they can never be exhaustive, and often they could preclude a factor that we do not think of at the time but could subsequently become important—perhaps more important than other factors. I do not wish to do that because it is important to enable the philosophy of proportionality to be interpreted with the factors at the time, depending on the circumstances.
	I recognise that the list sets out what the board should consider inter alia, so other matters should be considered too, but any list puts pressure on the board to consider those matters before anything else for fear of being reviewed, and that would restrict the flexibility of the board, something the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys and the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys have said they do not want. They do not want a one-size-fits-all approach. I agree, and we would argue that flexibility is exactly what is needed to prevent that. Reducing that flexibility through a predetermined list could ultimately be to their detriment, and none of us wishes to see that happen.
	I do not want to set out the principles. In our thinking we have followed the approach in Section 2(3) of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act, which establishes that regulatory activities should be carried out in a way that is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent, and that regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed. We believe that the terminology set out in the Bill in respect of proportionality and fair principles has a natural meaning that is widely accepted and widely understood, but it gives the flexibility to provide for the smaller regulatory bodies, which I know are concerned about this. I hope, as we continue to discuss this with them—we will certainly do so—that they will feel increasingly reassured that there is no question that one-size-fits-all would be highly inappropriate in the context of ensuring the smaller regulatory bodies are well catered for. We are all in agreement on what we are seeking to do; our contention is that we have achieved it within the Bill.
	On Amendment No. 433, we would generally expect money owed in respect of the levy to be paid from practising fee income, and Clause 50(4)(b) provides that it can be. I do not want to set out in the Bill that that is the only source of funds that could be used to meet a debt to the board, simply because we do not want to restrict the flexibility of the regulators to meet debt in the way best suited to their own financial arrangements. To do so could force an approved regulator to divert practising fee income away from essential regulatory functions in order to pay the board, when it might judge that it was less damaging to use some other asset or source of income. It is unusual for legislation to restrict the way in which money owed may be recovered and to fetter the court's ability to enforce payment of debts. We consider that the standard procedures that apply to the recovery of debt should apply in this case. It is a question of allowing flexibility for the regulatory bodies for circumstances we cannot foresee, where it might be in their best interests to provide for that money in other ways than simply using the practising fee. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will feel he has some shreds of comfort, and will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I understand her reply but, as there is some useful material in the amendment, could some form of undertaking be given that it could be used as guidance? It would be for a constructive purpose.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not willing to commit to saying that we will make this into formal guidance. I am sure, however, that, in the discussions I have mentioned with the smaller regulatory bodies, their concerns, which are reflected in some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, need to be properly dealt with. I am prepared to commit that we will continue the dialogue with them. It is our shared objective to ensure that they are treated properly and fairly. In legislative terms we have achieved that; in practical terms, it will be for the bodies concerned to make sure it happens.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her response. What she said about Amendment No. 417 will have gone some way to appeasing the concerns of the two small regulators who were really behind the promotion of the amendment. I recognise that she is against an amendment that specifies the component parts of proportionality; indeed, having heard the cogent way she has argued the point, I have some sympathy for her.
	On Amendment No. 433, as the Minister will be aware, there is a specific difficulty for the patent and trademark regulators because of their relationship with their own members. There would be nothing to prevent the patent and trademark attorneys leaving their societies but, unlike the case of barristers and solicitors, continuing to practise as patent and trademark attorneys. That is likely to happen unless the terms of the amendment are what happens in practice. I accept entirely that the Minister hopes that the practice by the Legal Services Board will be as set out in Amendment No. 433. Nevertheless, there is no compulsion, and, were it to be the case that the board went beyond the stipulations she has laid down, that could have an extremely adverse effect on those two small regulators. Still, I am aware that the Minister has strained to provide me with the answers I hoped to get, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 418 and 419:
	Clause 166, page 86, line 2, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 166, page 86, line 7, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 420 to 426 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 427:
	Clause 166, page 86, line 23, at end insert—
	"( ) But subsection (7)(a) does not include such proportion of the expenditure of the OLC incurred under or for the purposes of this Act as may reasonably be attributed to the exercise of its functions under sections (Power to establish voluntary scheme for resolving complaints), (Procedure for making orders under section (Power to establish voluntary scheme for resolving complaints)) and (Operation of voluntary scheme)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 428 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 429 to 431:
	Clause 166, page 86, line 24, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 166, page 86, line 25, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 166, page 86, line 28, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 167 [The levy: supplementary provisions]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 432:
	Clause 167, page 86, line 43, leave out "Secretary of State's" and insert "Lord Chancellor's"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 433 not moved.]
	Clause 168 [Amounts payable into the Consolidated Fund]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 434:
	Clause 168, page 87, line 39, at end insert—
	"( ) any amount payable to the OLC by virtue of standard terms within section (Operation of voluntary scheme)(8);"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 169 [Duties of regulated persons]:

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 435:
	Clause 169, page 88, line 20, at end insert—
	"( ) The duty to comply with regulatory arrangements overrides any obligations which a person may have, including to shareholders (otherwise than under criminal law), if those obligations are inconsistent with the duty to comply with the regulatory arrangements."

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the amendment attempts to make explicit the relationship between regulatory obligations and other responsibilities, such as commercial concerns and the wishes of shareholders. As I recall, the Minister had considerable sympathy with this principle in Committee. She seemed satisfied that as long as a statutory duty to comply with the professional conduct rules exists, there would be no need for an override provision. But there would be no harm in including this in principle in the Bill; indeed, it would be desirable.
	It is almost inevitable that there could at some point be a conflict between the professional conduct rules and the duty to shareholders. An explicit override provision would then become highly desirable, if not entirely necessary. Making this relationship clear from the outset to potential investors in legal service providers would also ease the tension between the effective provision of legal services and pure commercial considerations. I beg to move.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I add my support to what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said. The amendment has particular relevance; indeed, even cogency, in the context of the proposed alternative business structures where direct conflicts might arise between duty to the regulator and duty to shareholders, which is one of the reasons we are so concerned about this development.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Since we discussed this previously, I have consulted the Department of Trade and Industry. My officials have had discussions about the implications of the measure. It is true that ABS companies and the directors will already have a number of statutory duties under company law. Noble Lords could argue that these could potentially conflict but it is our contention that it is for the director concerned to ensure that any action which they take does not breach any of the statutory duties. While the same position applies in respect of directors of ABS firms, the Bill provides further safeguards. Lawyers and ABS firms have a statutory duty at Clause 169 to comply with their professional conduct obligations. In addition, at Clause 88 the Bill prevents any non-lawyers who are shareholders, managers or employees of an alternative business structure firm from acting in a way that causes lawyers to breach their professional conduct rules.
	My contention is very simple—that a new override provision is not necessary. Having consulted, we know that there is a genuine concern that this would create uncertainty, in particular for company law and for other legislation. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that we believe that the Bill sets out that statutory duties must be respected and that an override clause could potentially have a detrimental effect on company law. Therefore, we believe that we do not need to accept this amendment and we hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness but does she not agree with me that there is an inconsistency in what she has just said to your Lordships' House? In my contention the override clause would provide clarity but in her opinion it would provide inconsistency. If that is the case, surely the current provisions in the Bill are in consistent. How is it that an override clause, which in the noble Baroness's submission exactly reflects the balance that is in the Bill, can do something different from the balance that is in the Bill?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I understand it from our discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry, the provision that the noble Lord proposes could create difficulties for other applicable duties that may overlap with those of directors but for which there is no such statutory provision in the Bill. The contention is that it would create an uncertainty in the process, which I am sure is not what the noble Lord wishes, rather than what I think he seeks, which is to create greater certainty.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I entirely appreciate that the noble Baroness is acting on advice from the department but, with the greatest possible respect to her, would it not be a good idea for her to come back with a clear legal analysis of the concerns of the Department of Trade and Industry so that at Third Reading we can measure that against our own concern about the vital importance of shareholders' interests never overriding regulatory objectives?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am more than happy to set out in writing the concerns of the Department of Trade and Industry. It is always difficult to interpret other departments' words appropriately, particularly when cross-examined so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. If I set that out in writing, there will be plenty of time before Third Reading for the noble Lord to look at it.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I shall not comment somewhat ironically on that intervention. I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 170 [The Law Society, solicitors, recognised bodies and foreign lawyers]:

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendment No. 436:
	Clause 170, page 88, line 36, after "(c)" insert "section 89 of and"

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 436A to 497, 499 and 500, 502 to 504, 506 to 517A and 519 to 563.
	During the final day of Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, tabled a number of amendments which my noble friend Lady Ashton agreed to take away and consider properly before returning to the issue, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
	Having now had that opportunity to consider those amendments further, including discussing in considerable detail with the Law Society, we now bring forward these amendments which we believe address the issues raised during Committee.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, noted during Committee, these amendments are both numerous and technical in nature, and I shall therefore resist addressing each one in detail. Their intention is to amend Schedule 16 of the Bill, in turn amending the Solicitors Act 1974, the Administration of Justice Act 1985 and the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which relate to solicitors, recognised bodies and foreign lawyers.
	We agree there is a need to update those provisions further to ensure that they are consistent with practice among other legal professions—we seek to make the Solicitors Act 1974 more flexible in order to do so—to remove any anomalous provisions, to facilitate more competitive working practices between business and solicitors and to update legislation so that it reflects advances in current practice.
	This is one of a number of large groups of government amendments which make changes to existing legislation under which the legal professional bodies, and principally the Law Society, regulate their members. The amendments are largely inspired by the Law Society, and are intended to enable the society to more effectively regulate the profession. We believe that they achieve what is sought.
	In Committee my noble friend Lady Ashton confirmed to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that the Government intended to bring forward these amendments. However, I should draw to the attention of noble Lords that amendments in the next group relating to the Law Society's powers to rebuke and reprimand, and enhanced regulatory powers in relation to sole practices as well as the power to require information have not, as yet, been tabled by the Government.
	We want to make it plain that this is not because the Government do not support the principle, nor that there is anything between the Government and the Law Society in this regard. The reason for not bringing forward these amendments at this stage is simply because the issues are complex, and we need to do further work with the Law Society to ensure that the amendments we bring forward properly deliver the outcome both the Government and the Law Society want.
	I know that noble Lords will understand the amount of work that has been involved in bringing forward such a large number of amendments, which for the most part relate to the existing regulatory regime. But I hope that they will agree the value of these amendments and will indulge me in seeking a little more time to ensure that we get the remaining few amendments right.
	We will be able bring forward amendments to the Law Society's power to require information at Third Reading, and I am confident that the Government will be in a position to bring forward amendments in the other two areas at a later stage in the Bill's passage. However, I hope that noble Lords may take further reassurance from the fact that it would be possible to make these amendments under an order that could be made under the proposed amendment to Schedule 22—Amendment No. 648.
	The amendment, which responds to one made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, provides a transitory power to modify the functions of bodies. Should it not prove possible to bring forward amendments during the passage of the Bill, I confirm that the Government would make these amendments a high priority for any Schedule 22 order.
	Although this group deals with amendments to Schedule 16, there is a matter under Schedule 17, tabled under a later group, which I would also like to address. We have endeavoured to table an amendment giving the Council for Licensed Conveyancers a power to charge in specific circumstances for carrying out an investigation into allegations made against a licensed conveyancer. That is the only outstanding issue for the council, and one with which we entirely agree. However, there are still some unresolved issues surrounding exactly how that power should be drafted to give effect to such an amendment, but we recognise the desirability of giving the council that power.
	As I said earlier in relation to the Law Society's requested powers, we are trying to see whether it is possible to bring forward an amendment that is mutually agreeable at a later stage in the Bill. However, if that is not possible, such an amendment would again be given a high priority under the list of modifications sought under a Schedule 22 order. I beg to move.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the Minister rightly recalled the long series of amendments that we tabled in Committee to Schedule 16. I am most grateful that in respect of almost every one of those amendments the noble Lord has been able to give a positive response. There are two outstanding matters that refer to rebukes and fines in the context of the Law Society regulator. We have tabled amendments with regard to both those matters. I did not glean sufficient encouragement from what the Minister said to lead me to withdrawn those amendments but if, during the dinner break, which I anticipate is about to happen, the Government can assure me that all the concerns of the Law Society have been covered, I might well be inclined not to move those amendments.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, to save a little time during the dinner break, I can give the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the assurance that he requires.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, then I shall look forward not only to three but four courses.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 16 [The Law Society, solicitors, recognised bodies and foreign lawyers]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 436A to 446:
	Schedule 16, page 218, line 37, leave out paragraph 2 and insert—
	"2 In section 1A (practising certificates: employed solicitors)—
	(a) omit "or" at the end of paragraph (b), (b) in paragraph (c) omit "by the Council of the Law Society", and(c) at the end of that paragraph insert "or(d) by any other person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which is a reserved legal activity (within the meaning of that Act).""
	Schedule 16, page 219, line 26, after "(4A)" insert—
	"In relation to an appeal under subsection (4) the High Court may make such order as it thinks fit as to payment of costs.
	(4B) "
	Schedule 16, page 219, line 40, leave out "(2)" and insert "(4)"
	Schedule 16, page 221, line 4, leave out from "required" to "and" in line 5 and insert "by rules under section 34(1) by such time or in such circumstances as may be prescribed by those rules,"
	Schedule 16, page 221, line 6, leave out "free of conditions"
	Schedule 16, page 222, line 37, at end insert—
	"( ) The decision of the High Court on an appeal under subsection (9) shall be final."
	Schedule 16, page 223, line 5, after "(9)" insert—
	"In relation to an appeal under subsection (7) the High Court may make such order as it thinks fit as to payment of costs.
	(10) "
	Schedule 16, page 223, line 9, after "(1A)" insert "—
	(a) after "6(1)" insert ", 6A(1)",(b) after "1(1)(a)(i)," insert "(aa),", and(c) "
	Schedule 16, page 223, line 22, leave out "this section" and insert "subsection (5)"
	Schedule 16, page 225, line 40, leave out from beginning to "Regulations" in line 42 and insert—
	"(3E) In relation to an appeal under regulations made by virtue of subsection (3D), the High Court may make such order as it thinks fit as to payment of costs.
	(3F) The decision of the High Court on such an appeal shall be final.
	(3G) "
	Schedule 16, page 226, line 9, at end insert—
	"( ) After that subsection insert—
	"(1A) The powers conferred on the Society by subsection (1) include power to make, in relation to solicitors, provision of a kind which the Society would be prohibited from making but for section 154(5)(c) of the Legal Services Act 2007 (exception from prohibition on approved regulators making provision for redress).""
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that Report stage begin again not before 8.25 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Education: Young People in Custody

Baroness Massey of Darwen: asked Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to develop the education of young people in custody.
	My Lords, I am happy to have secured this debate and such a distinguished array of speakers. I am particularly looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, whose expertise will contribute greatly to this House.
	The education of young people in custody is an issue that troubles me, and I want to share some of my concerns and pose some questions to the Minister. A good touchstone for how we deal with young people is the Every Child Matters agenda, with its outcomes of the right of the child to economic well-being, health, safety, enjoyment, achievement and making a positive contribution. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that the welfare of the child is paramount. The same conditions set out in Every Child Matters and the UNCRC should apply to children in custody but often do not. I know that those young people have sometimes done terrible things; I am not saying that there should not be punishment. But for many young people, punishment simply does not work; punishment is just more of the same. Some 80 per cent of those leaving custody reoffend. Many of those young people have suffered cruelty, abuse, deprivation, lack of stimulus and rejection, and they are left with no aspirations. They are damaged children, and it does not help society or them to impose further damage. This morning, I spoke with the Children's Commissioner for England, who expressed his disquiet at the criminalisation of children. He told me that Canada has achieved a reduction of 60 per cent of children in custody since 2003 and a 6 per cent decrease in youth crime. Maybe we should look for examples of good practice further afield.
	The education that these children need is not just about literacy and numeracy, important though they are, but about social skills, health education and skills for life, including the ability to get a job or further education. We need to be visionary about this. Of course, custody should be the last resort but, once in custody, gaining education and skills is important. I welcome the first edition of the National Children's Bureau Healthier Inside magazine, which gives news and examples of good practice taking place across secure settings and themed around Every Child Matters. I highly recommend it to your Lordships.
	The Learning and Skills Council, which has responsibility for education provision in young offender institutions, states:
	"The majority of 15 year olds in juvenile establishments have had little or no formal education or training. As well as low levels of basic skills, many of them will have particular learning difficulties that need additional support".
	I have a few statistics. The Youth Justice Board reports that around 150,000 children and young people under the age of 18 enter the youth justice system each year, and about 70,000 of those are of compulsory school age. About half are underachievers, a third need help with literacy and numeracy, and 15 per cent have a special educational needs statement, in comparison to 3 per cent of the general population. Some 60 per cent have difficulties with communication, 83 per cent of boys had been excluded from school and 41 per cent were aged 14 or under when they were last in school. That set of facts presents a challenge for any system of education, and I am aware that there are dedicated people who are attempting to better the lot of young people in custody, but those damaged youngsters need intensive efforts and urgent help.
	The Youth Justice Board has prioritised the provision of education and training, health and mental healthcare and support in finding accommodation after release from custody. But the way in which the secure regime works makes it difficult to provide consistent and relevant education. Sentences tend to be short—on average four months—and transfers between institutions are frequent. It appears that educational establishments are reluctant to admit young people who have recently served a custodial sentence. Indeed, Section 562 of the Education Act 1996 exempts local education authorities from having to provide education to children who are detained under a court order. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed particular concern about the lack of a statutory right to education for young people in custody.
	The DfES has identified many of the problems through responses to its consultation paper Reducing Re-offending through Skills and Employment. Those problems include negative experiences of learning; lack of continuity between school and offender provision; exclusion from school; transfer between agencies, which disrupts learning; the need for records of achievement; and the need for vocational options. What has happened to those recommendations?
	A recent Youth Justice Board report published research findings on the barriers faced by young people in the youth justice system when trying to access education, training and employment. The issues identified included low attainment, detachment from school—sometimes due to bullying—pupil/teacher relations, size of class, and disruption of education by being in custody. Youth justice practitioners see complex rules on benefits and allowances, lack of continuity of education between custody and the community, lack of support for special educational needs, and inability to access education because of being in the youth justice system. Strategic barriers included educationalists' lack of knowledge of the youth justice system, confused responsibilities and lines of accountability—such as whether the YOT worker, the school, college or Connexions adviser is responsible for the young person—and so on.
	I am aware that the DfES published a consultation paper on education and training for young people in the youth justice system in April. It looks at four areas: transition from custody to community, the delivery of a personalised curriculum, workforce development, and clarifying accountability for the education of young offenders. What will happen to this consultation and in what timescale? The problem is urgent.
	Young offenders should be a priority for LEAs, schools, FE colleges and training providers, otherwise we risk a cycle of deprivation, disengagement with society and ensuing reoffending. Guidance is urgently needed for LEAs, as well as training for staff in how the youth justice system works, designated staff in schools and colleges with responsibility for these young people, appropriate education delivered in a consistent way, local schools admissions policies for young people in the criminal justice system, and access to special educational needs co-ordinators for secure training centres and youth offender institutions. An educational plan should be tailored to individual young offenders and should follow the young person. Resettlement planning should have a specific education and training element, agreed with all partners. What joint work is there on young offenders between the Minister's department and other relevant government departments, particularly those with some responsibility for offender management and communities? Partnership and collaboration is essential at both government and local level to secure a better future for young offenders and for society. I would not wish to see Every Child Matters become simple rhetoric.
	I am delighted that the Minister for Education is responding to this debate, stressing education as opposed to criminality. I know that he has a broad view of the importance of education and is genuinely concerned about this issue. I hope that he will be able to tell us that young people in custody will have a better future than they now do.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is just as well that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is listening to us today. If it was a Minister from the Home Office, it would be on their last day and there would not be much point in talking to them. I hope that he has a slightly longer timescale in mind. We wish him well with the new Prime Minister.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, for giving me the chance to talk on this subject, albeit briefly. I will address a couple of points. One is the curriculum in custody. It currently appears to be very much at the LSC's level of thinking—courses designed basically for people out there in the community. For a lot of these kids, we need to reach much deeper. We must get right back to the level of socialisation—equipping them with the underlying human skills necessary to tackle life and education. We should start by creating a structure where they can develop a trusting relationship with staff. A lot of these children do not have any experience of that kind of relationship or, if they have, it has broken down. Once that is in place, we should work from there to offer a real experience of teamwork, getting on with people, giving and taking orders, and learning how to exist in relationships.
	If kids are only in for four months, that sort of thing might be achieved in that timescale. We must focus everything on that set of achievements. We must do away with things like 24-hour in-cell TV, which is immensely disruptive of any attempt to build relationships. Kids just hide themselves away in their cells, and do not need to engage with the outside. We must really concentrate on having a proper PSHE programme. You cannot learn anything unless you know the basics of PSHE; I do not mean the condom-on-a-banana sort of PSHE, but the kind of programme that is really well developed in schools such as Wellington and others which are really taking this forward. We need a big emphasis on the sort of activities where you can really appreciate teamwork, such as team sports and others, which kids can really involve themselves in. Once a kid is becoming socialised, you want to reintroduce them to education. That requires giving them a hook—something that they can hang on to as a real motivation to get involved in education. Whether it be art, music or practical work, that must be the emphasis, and not some precipitate rush back into the academic curriculum which these kids have rejected, or which has rejected them.
	We can do a lot more to make these institutions educational institutions. We want to see the teachers in these places having a real career structure, with training at the bottom. I know that the Government want to see proper training, but it must be prison-specific. Teachers need to learn how to deal with extremely manipulative young men. They need to learn prison craft and how to build relationships in a way which is just not necessary for teachers outside; they are required to give that sort of one-on-one support. They need a career structure which leads upwards. It ought to be possible. I cannot see why a teacher should not aspire to become the number one governor of a YOI. That would give education a real status within the Prison Service. These institutions ought to have much better links with pupil referral units and the other educational institutions outside, which these children will be going on to. I see no reason why that should not be possible. Teachers run boarding schools. There is not an awful lot of difference.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has raised an important issue. I will concentrate my remarks on the education of juveniles—offenders aged 18 or under—in young offender institutions.
	Education is crucial to the prospects of diverting young people from crime on release. Most young offenders in custody have been permanently excluded or have persistently truanted from school. A third of those entering custody have had no education at all in the previous six months. Youth Justice Board studies have shown that, when they are released, educational underachievement is one of the strongest factors associated with reoffending.
	The Government deserve some credit. Provision for the education of juveniles in custody has improved considerably since the establishment of the Youth Justice Board and the resulting injection of greater resources into custodial regimes for this age group, but there are some serious problems. All too often, juveniles in custody do not receive the minimum amount of education prescribed by the Youth Justice Board. The YJB requires a minimum of 25 hours in young offender institutions, and that this should be achieved for 90 per cent of young people. Against that, the reality is that 40 per cent of juveniles in young offender institutions were receiving less than 20 hours of education a week. At two establishments, over half the young people were receiving less than 15 hours. There is a gap between what is required and what really happens.
	The Offenders Learning and Skills Service and the Youth Justice Board require one-third of programmes to comprise basic skills education, one-third academic or vocational subjects, and one-third physical education, arts, IT and personal, social and health education. What is the reality? The range of vocational courses in many young offender institutions is far too narrow, restricting young people's ability to gain skills that will help them to gain employment or enter further training on release.
	What are the difficulties? The first is attracting teachers to work in young offender institutions and retaining them. Secondly, because education must be delivered for 50 weeks a year in custody, teachers do not benefit from school holidays in the same way as teachers in the community. Thirdly, the statutory probation year for a newly qualified teacher cannot be completed by working in custody, so staff often leave to complete the year in mainstream education and do not return. Fourthly, many do not feel that they are valued or rewarded for working with particularly difficult young people. Finally, there is no clear career structure comparable to the mainstream education system.
	For the short period which most young offenders spend in custody, 92 per cent of juveniles sentenced receive detention and training orders. These range from four months to two years, of which half is spent in custody and the other half under post-release supervision. Many young people are in custody for a few weeks or months, which makes it difficult for them to complete externally organised qualifications.
	How do we alleviate the problem? There is a need for streamlined arrangements so that young offenders may continue their education on release. However, we can expect that, even where young people have made educational progress, it will often break down quickly when they leave custody. A recent audit for the Youth Justice Board found that over half of young offenders had no arrangements for education, training or employment a month after being released. Only 6 per cent of youth offending teams said that young people were able to continue the education and training received in custody after release. In 2004-05, under 60 per cent of young people being supervised by youth offending teams following release were in suitable full-time education, training or employment. This compares with 74 per cent of all those supervised by youth offending teams now. There are many important aspects but time is short. I will pass my further notes to the Minister so that he can adequately deal with the questions that I wish to raise.

Baroness Coussins: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to make my maiden speech on such an important topic. I would like to see the DfES consultation lead to a new and explicit commitment to include alcohol education for young people in custody. This aspect of education is often completely overlooked or tacked on as an afterthought to substance misuse programmes which focus on drugs.
	I should first declare various interests. Until March this year I was a trustee of the Alcohol Education and Research Council, and until September 2006 was the chief executive of the Portman Group, an industry-funded body encouraging responsible behaviour by consumers and drinks producers. The Portman Group's then charitable arm, the Drinkaware Trust, funded a project at Winchester prison where alcohol education sessions were run by the charity Alcohol Concern. The Drinkaware Trust is now wholly independent from the Portman Group, and is still funded by the industry but not controlled by it, which is the right arrangement and I was very pleased to have been associated with that development.
	Young people in custody need a better understanding of how alcohol affects their behaviour, because it could help to prevent them reoffending. We do not know how many young people are in custody because of alcohol-related offences. It is reasonable to assume that many of them would not be there if they had not committed offences while under the influence. The youth lifestyles survey found a strong relationship between drunkenness and offending, albeit not a causal one. A much higher proportion of offenders aged 12 to 17 were found to be frequent drinkers than non-offenders.
	Alcohol-related crime costs this country £7.3 billion a year. If alcohol education could help reduce the level of reoffending, those costs would begin to come down. The second reason why these young people need alcohol education, whatever their offence, is that they are likely to have missed out on it at school. It is part of the national curriculum. However, as we have already heard, one survey found that 83 per cent of boys in youth offender institutions had been excluded from school.
	Alcohol education is not by itself a magic solution, but it can play a vital part in helping to inform and motivate personal responsibility. The Drinkaware Trust publishes an excellent resource called Streetwise, and I understand that tentative discussions are under way to adapt it for a youth offender audience. I encourage the Department for Education and Skills to get involved in this project.
	My final point is that interventions on alcohol need to be specifically identified, with dedicated resources. A survey in Winchester prison revealed that although 49 per cent said that they would like to make use of an alcohol counselling service, amazingly 37 per cent of that group were not eligible for it because they did not also have a drug problem. Alcohol misuse alone did not qualify for help. Similarly, in the school curriculum there is sometimes a tendency in PSHE lessons to concentrate on illegal drugs and forget about alcohol. "Substance misuse" is often interpreted as meaning drugs not including alcohol.
	The pendulum should not swing the other way and give alcohol undue prominence or blame. Alcohol is legal, drinking is normal and in moderation can even be beneficial. But young people in custody are more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds, including those with alcohol problems. Like over 90 per cent of adults in this country, they too will drink, so must be given the opportunity to learn how to do so without causing harm to themselves or others.
	The average time that a young person remains in custody is four months. That is surely enough time for them to benefit from some alcohol education. I hope that the review by the Department for Education and Skills will take this issue on board.

Lord Judd: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in her maiden speech. It was refreshingly direct and well informed. I am sure that it augurs well for her contributions in the future. I am just sorry that she only had four minutes; I would have liked to listen to her for longer. Her wider experience in corporate responsibility and self-regulation are badly needed in much of our deliberations. We look forward to all that she will have to say.
	My noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen is also to be warmly thanked for giving us the opportunity for even a brief word on this important subject. She was right to emphasise that many in young offender institutions have been failed by society and we must face that reality. The reasons that they have been failed are complex; there is a matrix. There are many things to be tackled in society itself. The challenge is to have fewer people falling into crime rather than discussing how we help those who have fallen.
	In the midst of all that we must never forget the issue of mental illness which is a highly relevant but very difficult issue. Many people in young offender institutions and prisons should not be there at all because they need more specialist support, analysis and help from professionals than can possibly be provided by dedicated staff in the institutions which basically provide custody.
	Rehabilitation, as I never tire of saying in these debates, must be the top priority in our penal system. Not to have rehabilitation as the top priority is madness: it fails the young; it fails the prisoners; it leads to more wasted, and continued wasted, lives; it is economic nonsense because of the cost of reoffending later. If we are to make rehabilitation the key priority and mean it, education is central to that; and if education is to be central, it must be not only formal education, certainly, but also skills education and wider social education, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, sensibly argued.
	I was president of the YMCA in England. The YMCA works with young offenders in young offender institutions. I was fascinated by that work. It brought home to me how serious the lack of education is among many of those who end up in this situation. It also brought home how much could be done. With education we have the living evidence—people who have gone on to make a success of their lives. Indeed, they have gone on to become university graduates and postgraduates, having been given the opportunity to release their talent and put it to good use.
	I commend the Government for the interdepartmental work that they are undertaking in recognition of the matrix. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Adonis is replying tonight; I just wish that his department had the lead responsibility for ensuring that education happens in all our penal institutions. He will forgive me for making this point, but I never understood why in the last Act we did not endorse that principle. Our approach to young offenders has seen far too much emphasis put on punitive attitudes and policy. The challenge is to rebuild with the young people themselves their lives and to turn those young people into positive citizens. If we want to do that, resources are essential.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on their significant investment in the education of young people in custody. I regret that there is not time now to acknowledge in detail what has been achieved. Much more needs to be done, of course. Edmund in Shakespeare's "King Lear" says:
	"Now, gods, stand up for bastards!".
	I should like to concentrate on how we educate young people in custody about relationships. Those young people have often never had the experience of being cared for. It is hard to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on this, but I shall try.
	Academic and vocational attainments are vital, as we have heard, but the other side of the coin is a young person's social education, or what the continentals contain in their discipline of pedagogy—education in the widest sense. Custody officers need to model good relationships to their young offenders, as the Carlile report emphasised. While most sentences are brief, many young people will return on several occasions. Each time, their relationship with their personal officer and the wider officer community should be an educative experience. That is one reason why improvements in training and continual professional development for custody officers are so essential, as we have heard. To be consistent models and to effectively engage, officers need a theoretical foundation for their work, appropriate supervision, and consultation with expert practitioners and mental health professionals. The same should go for teachers working in these environments. Officer retention and stability in the workforce must be aimed for.
	A separate point is that, with the recognition of the need for the secure estate, probation, social services, the health service and youth offending teams to work together to achieve reductions in reoffending, Her Majesty's Government should accelerate their programme of workforce development in the secure estate. That young people leaving custody too often walk off the face of a cliff serves no one's interests. Professional partnership requires parity of professional status.
	A documentary recording the life of a young boy growing up in care shows him learning about relationships. Throughout his childhood in care, we hear on several occasions—in the run-ups to Christmas and to his birthdays—how much he is looking forward to seeing his father. On each occasion, the father simply does not turn up.
	Many of the young men and women in custody are already parents. I recognise the important achievements of the Government in investment and staff development, but it is vital to go far further in developing officers and residential care workers. The personal officer/worker role must be thoroughly embedded and developed, but too many inspections point to its neglect. If we wish to prevent reoffending and break the cycle of low-achieving families, more attention needs to be paid to the social education of young offenders. Personal officers should be consistent, should take an interest in the welfare and progress of their young offenders and should keep their undertakings. They need to be trained and supported to do so. That is how the young men and women may have their first experience of a positive parental figure and how they may begin to learn how they might be consistent towards, take an interest in and keep their undertakings to their children. We need to stand up for, so to speak, bastards—children in whom parents have not invested themselves. Otherwise we should not say,
	"How sharper than a serpent's tooth ... is ... a thankless child",
	but rather,
	"As we sow, so shall we reap".

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen for instigating this short but important debate. Education is a vital part of our social and cultural being. If this is denied us, we lose both the cement of valuable relationships and the bricks on which many of us build our future lives.
	In my short contribution, I want to pay tribute to the teachers who teach young offenders in custody. It is not easy for any worker to work in a prison and for teachers there is a need for special patience and expertise. The 2004 report by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, Rethinking Crime & Punishment, contains a fascinating quotation from the Times of 1867. It asks the question:
	"Which is best, to pay for the policeman or the schoolmaster—the prison or the school?".
	Although I value our police force tremendously, in the context of this debate I would opt for the schoolteacher. As long as young offenders are in custody, we as a society have a major responsibility to provide the right education for them. For this, we need the expertise and specialisms of dedicated teaching staff. There can surely be no better dedication than to want to help children who are, for whatever reason, serving a custodial sentence.
	I first became interested in this specialist teaching when a relative of mine left teaching in a school in Essex to teach young offenders in a nearby young persons unit. It was a bold step and she had to learn quickly about what often already damaged children were capable of and what their complex requirements were. Despite some traumas in the beginning, she ultimately found her experience both satisfying and rewarding. Some of her pupils on leaving the establishment in which she taught kept in touch with her. Some reoffended, but others did not. She took a certain satisfaction in hoping that she had helped them when they most needed it.
	To find out the situation facing teachers working in custodial establishments today, I spoke to members of the National Union of Teachers who work in this area. They made two key points. First, the main aim of teachers working in secure education establishments is to ensure that they play a major role in the pupil's overall progress. They want to be a key part of the throughcare that is provided by all the professionals working together. They want to ensure that they have a place in the investment and commitment that enable the young people to become stronger and less insecure, to function socially and to catch up academically. I know that your Lordships will agree that this is a worthy aim and I know that the Minister will do all that he can to help them to achieve it.
	The second issue is the age of teachers working in custodial care. At present, 70 per cent of the NUT teachers working in this area are between 40 and 60 and a further 11 per cent are over 60. Younger teachers are not considering working in the secure units or the local authority children's homes. Those already teaching there are rightly worried that their younger counterparts are not joining them. One of the main reasons appears to be that there is no career structure for those who choose to educate young people in custody, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, outlined. My noble friend the Minister may wish to consider this problem.
	Providing sound education must be one of the better ways in which we as a society can help in preventing reoffending. To teach young offenders takes special, caring, talented and motivated individuals, and we should pay tribute to them.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I join those who have thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for securing the debate and I congratulate my noble friend Lady Coussins on her stimulating maiden speech. In that spirit, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for sending those taking part in this debate a copy of the consultation document, which I had not seen before. I read it with a sense of déjà-vu, because, 10 years ago, as Chief Inspector of Prisons, I started taking Ofsted with me into young offender establishments, writing reports giving all the details that I recognise here and making a whole stream of recommendations about what should happen. I find it rather galling that, 10 years later, we are saying exactly the same thing again.
	The advantage of these short debates is that people have to concentrate on one subject. I hope that the aggregation of the separate subjects will add up to fuel and ammunition for the Minister to cope with and take forward. I shall concentrate on one specific issue. While this report rightly concentrates on the delivery of education and what should be there, it has to be based on assessment. As the report itself says, assessment is one of the weakest aspects in what has happened so far because it is patchy. There is not enough information about a young person's learning progress and personal educational needs.
	As I have said in the House before, the only time that I discovered in any prison someone who was able to reach 100 per cent of all young offenders was when I was introduced in a young offender establishment, in Polmont, to a speech and language therapist. The governor said to me that if he had to get rid of all his staff, the last one out of the gate would be that therapist. When I asked why, he explained that she was able to unlock all the needs of all the young offenders—in education, healthcare, behaviour and discipline—because she enabled them to communicate. Only through that communication could they tell the people what was actually required. Importantly, this communication helped them to build the relationships that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lord Listowel have mentioned as being so critical here.
	I have mentioned this many times before in this House and in reports as Chief Inspector of Prisons from 2000 onwards. Lady Helen Hamlyn funded speech and language therapists in two young offender establishments for two years and it was academically evaluated by a professor from the University of Surrey. The evaluation proved conclusively that these therapists were essential to the proper understanding of what these young people needed so that resources could be deployed to best effect. Still nothing has happened. Why? Apparently primary care trusts are responsible for speech and language therapists and they have to come in health plans. The Department for Education and Skills says that it is not up to it even though communication skills are essential. The Home Office consistently refuses to fund assessment. The Minister for Social Exclusion, to whom I have spoken about this, says that nothing is more socially exclusive than the failure to communicate and that communication is the scourge of the 21st century.
	Tomorrow sees the launch of a new Ministry which did not appear in the list talked about in the House: the Ministry of Justice. Could I hope that, on day one, the Ministry of Justice will realise that for several years what everyone knows is essential for so many of our young people has been denied, and get these therapists in to assess what can be done to make certain that young people who end up in custody get the education and the other things that they so badly need?

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for introducing this important debate and in particular for her unequivocal statements about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
	I think that all noble Lords who have spoken are agreed that one of the major factors that can be used to keep young people out of trouble is a good education. As we have heard, another major factor that young offenders have in common is their poor level of educational attainment. Many noble Lords have given us the horrifying statistics about attainment, and my noble friend Lord Dholakia has given us the horrible reality of education in prison. These are not the easiest of pupils to educate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, emphasised. Many of them are in poor health due to a bad diet, smoking, drug and/or alcohol abuse. In her notable maiden speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, emphasised the point about alcohol. I believe that one of the prerequisites for addressing their education is addressing their health first, with nutritious foods, sensible exercise, drug or alcohol rehab and speech therapy where necessary. If the diet and health of ordinary children in school is the concern of educationalists, which it is, how much more attention needs to be paid to those matters when dealing with young offenders?
	Another problem facing those who try to raise the educational and skills level of young offenders is their inability to concentrate for long. These are young people who have not been used to working hard at intellectual tasks; they need to learn to listen, speak and express their feelings just like a young child does. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, speech therapy is one of the things that these young people desperately need. The inability to express oneself leads to frustration and anger which often manifests itself in antisocial behaviour or criminality.
	I have read the Next Steps document that follows on from Reducing Reoffending Through Skills and Employment. It contains much that is good and desirable. However, I detect a failing which I find rather concerning. Naturally, there is an emphasis on basic skills, which is right and understandable because no one can progress to other qualifications without basic literacy and numeracy. However, beyond that, I detect an emphasis entirely on skills which I believe is wrong. Of course the country needs a skilled workforce, and we have heard about the high percentage of jobs in the future that need skills. However, there is a tendency to assume that young offenders are fit for nothing but skilled labour. In fact, many young offenders are very bright with high IQs. They have been bored at school because the curriculum did not challenge or inspire them; so being bright and curious, they got into trouble. If only these young people could be inspired and challenged by a curriculum that met their needs in a learning environment that took account of their disadvantaged backgrounds, what might they achieve, not just in the direction of skills but, for some, academically?
	As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, many of these young people lack the social skills needed to work in groups. Many of them are emotionally very immature and have no idea how to resolve conflict by discussion and persuasion. In fact, many have been "persuaded" to do what their parents wanted through violent beatings, so they see violence as normal. Their backgrounds were not as enriched as those lucky cared-for children who were surrounded by books and toys from which they could learn, taken on trips to places of interest and had sports coaching and music lessons—the sorts of things that enrich all of our lives. In the short time allowed by the majority of sentences served by young offenders, it is impossible to address these problems. That is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, rapid diagnosis of need is essential, as is an action plan which can be commenced in custody and followed through in the community, at college and other places, after release.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, for giving the House the opportunity to debate this important topic. I also thank the Minister for sending copies of the Green Paper.
	The debate has been marked by expert contributions and graced by the impressive maiden speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. There is no doubt that reoffending rates are increased by the insufficient provision of education and skills training for young people in custody. Although 46 per cent of the 150,000 children and young people under the age of 18 who enter the youth justice system each year are of compulsory school age, the average number of hours of education undertaken by prisoners held in young offender institutions is only 7.6 hours per prisoner per week.
	We are not talking about well adjusted children in classes with other well adjusted children, who would probably make the most of a meagre 7.6 hours per week of teaching. When we talk about young people and children in custody, we are talking about some of the most disadvantaged in the country—the damaged children of whom the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, spoke so powerfully. Eighty-five per cent of them have mental health problems. More than half of them are addicted to drugs and alcohol. Half have spent time in care or under the supervision of social services and many have special educational needs. That is a bleak scene and I ask the Minister whether he considers that an acceptable level of educational provision for those children.
	It is devastating that nine out of 10 juvenile offenders on the intensive supervision and surveillance programme are re-offenders. That can be due in no small part to the disruption caused to education in custody by custodial transfers. I was struck by the words of Ann Creighton of the Prisoners' Education Trust, who said:
	"what's really needed is a scheme where prisoners are not transferred at all while they are on courses. This is critical but no one is grasping that nettle".
	It is surprising that the Government have so far failed to implement their recommendation that there should be an electronic transfer of individual learning records. That would at least ensure continuity. In the interests of future planning, can the Minister inform us how many young offenders of compulsory school age are transferred each year?
	One of the pleasures of my enforced rest during the past three weeks has been watching daytime television. Last week, I was moved by an interview with Mark Johnson. Mark is a drug addict who has been in prison and lived rough on the streets. His history is heart-rending and heart-warming. With the help of the Prince's Trust and great inner strength, he has turned his life around and is now helping others. He has written a book. But for every Mark Johnson, there are countless others who slip through the system.
	The education of young people in custody is an essential component of their rehabilitation. It is vital to the prevention of re-offending. The provision of education and skills, the equipping with underlying social and communication skills so rightly identified by my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and mentoring on leaving prison, will help to enable young offenders to rely on their achievements and not a culture of crime. That can only be good for them and for the whole of society.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I think that I speak on behalf of the House when I say how delighted we are that the noble Baroness is back in her place this evening. I also say how grateful we are to my noble friend Lady Massey for securing the debate on education for young people in custody and for introducing it with her customary insight and legitimate concern. We were especially glad to hear the impressive maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. She brings to the House great expertise—in particular, on alcohol abuse and education—and we look forward to her future participation in our debates.
	I begin by stating unequivocally that custody should always be a last resort for children and young people. The criminal justice system is intended to do all that it can to keep young people from custody whenever there is a viable alternative.
	The best antidote to youth crime is, of course, a caring family home and a good education. Better family support and better schools are at the heart of government policy. Sure Start children's centres have steadily increased the support available for disadvantaged families, assisting parents with children in their early education, and we have recently announced a £30 million grant to create a new National Academy for Parenting Practitioners.
	Extended schools are offering a broader range of services, including after-school provision for older children. A new and better relationship is being built up between crime prevention agencies and schools. Safer Schools Partnerships, for example, place specially trained police officers in schools in areas of high crime to promote respect, responsibility and a safer learning environment. I have visited many such schools and have been very impressed with the work and the warm welcome that the schools give to those specially trained police officers. Evaluations show that those partnerships have had a beneficial impact, improving behaviour and attendance and building a better understanding about the role of the police and better links between the police and community. Since January, local authorities have been required to provide positive activities for young people, including those at risk of social exclusion, throughout the school year.
	In terms of criminal justice, the police and the courts deal with approximately 150,000 young people each year, of which only 3 to 4 per cent receive a custodial sentence lasting an average of four months. It is the Government's duty to ensure that young offender institutions provide appropriate support to meet these young people's needs, which are often complex, as my noble friend Lord Judd rightly emphasised. Up to 40 per cent of young people entering custody have mental health problems; more than 80 per cent have tried drugs and are likely to bear the effects of substance misuse; alcohol misuse is common and a high proportion have special educational needs, which are often unidentified.
	Education plays a critical role in both rehabilitation and reducing re-offending, not least by making young offenders employable after release. Our aim is to give young people the practical and social skills to pursue crime-free lives at the end of their sentences. Yet, unsurprisingly, many in custody have had poor experiences of school. Young offenders are 20 times more likely to be regular truants than the general school-age population—hence often the failure to diagnose and address special educational needs. Forty-two per cent of young offenders underachieve in school; most lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills.
	When we created the Youth Justice Board in 1998, one of its main aims was to ensure that young offenders receive a good education in custody. The same aim underpinned our decision to transfer responsibility for offender education from the Home Office to the DfES in 2001 and our subsequent decisions dramatically to increase both spending and minimum standards. I am glad to tell the House that the current chairman of the Youth Justice Board, Graham Robb, is a former head teacher and passionately committed to improving education for young offenders.
	I was glad to hear the positive comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about the YJB's work. Although I fully accept that, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has said, much remains to be done. However, I think that he would accept that the position is better than when he was writing his powerful reports a decade ago.
	Since the creation of the Youth Justice Board, we have seen significant improvements in educational provision. During 2005-06, the 17 young offender institutions delivered an average of 28.2 hours of education, training and personal development activity per individual per week. That is a fourfold increase compared to 2002. In the 15 secure children's homes and the four secure training centres, the percentage of young people receiving 30 hours or more education and training was 79.9 per centand 99.4 per centrespectively.
	Government spending on young offender custodial education—in my experience, spending is always the prime indicator of whether a Government are committed to something or not—rose from £5 million to £20 million, a fourfold increase between 2002 and 2005, which has meant that more institutions can employ far more teachers. I echo the tribute that my noble friend Lady Gibson paid to the work of teachers in young offender institutions. That also means that they can employ more learning support assistants and arrange additional specialist services for young people under their care.
	From 31 July last year, all young offender institutions became part of the new Offender Learning and Skills Service, whereby their education and training programmes are planned and funded by the Learning and Skills Council. This is creating a more co-ordinated and consistent service and represents an important first step towards integrating offender learning with mainstream education and skills training, which—and I say this in reply to my noble friend Lord Judd—is my department's guiding principle for action in this area. Although I accept that he wishes that we had been able to go further in the recent Learning and Skills Act.
	One of the Learning and Skills Council's duties is to monitor the qualifications achieved by all young offenders. In 2005-06, 42.5 per cent of those in young offender institutions improved by one skill level in literacy and numeracy. The fact that we now have this kind of data responds to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. There is far better tracking of individual offenders than used to be the case. Given the Learning and Skills Council's more recent involvement in this area, we would hope to see this figure rise in the next set of results and to see much better and consistent tracking of individual young people.
	From 2007-08, we have also improved access to education maintenance allowances for young people in custody. With immediate effect, young people can apply for EMAs while in custody, without the need to submit evidence of financial income. That means that they will receive the EMA when they enrol on a valid learning programme. Such measures are simplifying the application process for offenders and are a vital incentive to engage in education or training immediately upon release. Another step we are taking is to review the local authority funding formula for Connexions services aimed at young people in custody, to help ease their transition back into community life. So we are making progress.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked if we are satisfied with the status quo. I can tell her absolutely straightforwardly that we are not. We believe that much more needs to be done, while accepting that transforming the prospects of young offenders is extremely difficult, not least when, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, so rightly noted, some have serious behavioural problems, refuse to attend classes, or are distracted by other worries. Our concern is systematically to raise the availability and quality of provision, to reduce variations in the quality of teaching and support between institutions, and to gain a more accurate picture of performance in each as a spur to further improvements.
	My noble friend Lady Massey asked about intergovernmental working. I am glad to be able to tell her that to bring about further improvements following the Green Paper in 2005, we created a new policy team in my department to work closely with the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Youth Justice Board and the Learning and Skills Council on reviewing provision. There is now an inter-ministerial group on reducing reoffending, including representation from the Department for Communities and Local Government. In our recent Next Steps document, which was published last December and which I circulated to noble Lords before the debate, we have encouraged children's trusts, local authorities and the new local partnerships to develop vocational education for 14 to 19 year-olds and to pay greater attention to education services for young offenders. Many local authorities had, in fact, already set their own targets. Kensington and Chelsea, for example, is focusing on the percentage of 16 to 18 year-olds leaving custody who then participate in full-time education, training or employment. We would like more local authorities to follow that lead.
	We are now in the middle of a public consultation on the Next Steps document, which runs until 4 July. It covers all young people in England aged between 10 and 17 who are supervised by the youth justice system, both in custody and in the community, with a particular focus on offenders of compulsory school age. It includes consideration of all three types of secure establishment: young offender institutions, secure training centres, and secure children's homes. Responses to our consultation will play a key role in how we prioritise the issues and develop policy, and the Government are encouraged by the input from many working in the youth justice and voluntary sectors. In reply to the direct question asked by my noble friend Lady Massey, I can tell her that we are committed to publishing further plans by the end of this year in response to that consultation.
	I shall briefly highlight four key areas covered by the Next Steps document, which are of direct relevance to today's debate. First, we are exploring ways of ensuring that custodial regimes are organised to best promote participation in education. For some young people, the structured environment of a custodial institution is conducive to education. For others with poor memories of school, however, other incentives are needed to engage them in learning. In particular, we recognise the high incidence of special educational needs among young offenders. Issues under consideration include the prompt sharing of information from existing SEN statements, and ensuring that the additional support identified in those statements is provided in youth custody.
	Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, rightly highlighted, we need a curriculum that is well suited to the needs of young offenders. Programmes should make teaching basic literacy and numeracy a priority, but they must also go on to equip young people with wider skills—including PSHE, social skills, and relationship skills, which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned—which young people need both to apply for jobs and to become better citizens when they leave their custodial settings. This means identifying the means to provide consistent learning programmes across the secure estate, as transfers between establishments are sometimes unavoidable, and spanning the period before and after custody. It also requires the recognition that many young offenders in custody do not respond well to a traditional classroom environment. We are therefore considering how the current reforms to the 14-to-19 curriculum, including the introduction of new vocational diplomas, can be applied to young offenders. The transition from custody back to community is an especially critical point for young people. The supervision and support provided in custody must continue on release. This requires planning for education, training or employment early in a young person's sentence.
	The third area to highlight is workforce development, rightly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and my noble friend Lady Gibson. A set of questions and points were raised in the contributions and I will respond to them in writing. Suffice it to say that we recognise the need for considerably greater attention to workforce development in this area.
	The fourth area that we are examining is the accountability framework for custodial education. During the Committee stage of the Education and Inspections Bill, some noble Lords argued that local authorities should have greater responsibility in this area; we are looking at this issue.
	I hope I have been able to demonstrate the extreme seriousness with which we and the Youth Justice Board take this issue. When we say "every child matters", that includes every child in custody. We will continue to improve the educational welfare of young offenders. We are very grateful for all the comments made in today's debate; I hope that they will help us to forge better policy in this area.

Legal Services Bill [HL]

Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 16.
	[Amendment No. 446ZA not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 446A to 467:
	Schedule 16, page 226, line 21, at end insert "or other financial institutions"
	Schedule 16, page 227, line 4, at end insert—
	"( ) In subsection (2), omit from "and the rules" to the end."
	Schedule 16, page 227, line 9, leave out from "of" to end of line 10 and insert "—
	(a) the solicitor's clients, other persons or trusts, generally, or(b) that client, person or trust, separately.""
	Schedule 16, page 227, line 41, after first "solicitor" insert ", or an account of another person,"
	Schedule 16, page 228, line 4, at end insert "or an account of another person"
	Schedule 16, page 228, line 10, leave out paragraph 33 and insert—
	" For section 36 (compensation fund) substitute—
	"36 Compensation grants
	(1) The Society may make rules concerning the grant of compensation by the Society in respect of loss that a person has suffered, or is likely to suffer, as a result of—
	(a) an act or omission of a solicitor or former solicitor;(b) an act or omission of an employee or former employee of a solicitor or former solicitor;(c) the exercise by the Society of any of its powers under Part 2 of Schedule 1.
	(2) The rules may (among other things) make provision—
	(a) as to the circumstances in which such grants may and may not be made;(b) as to the form and manner in which a compensation claim is to be made;(c) as to the procedure for determining compensation claims;(d) for the making of grants in respect of a compensation claim before it is finally determined;(e) for a grant to be made by way of loan in such circumstances and on such terms as may be prescribed in, or determined in accordance with, the rules;(f) for a grant to be made by way of making good a deficiency in monies held in trust by the Society under paragraph 6 or 6A of Schedule 1;(g) as to the minimum and maximum grants payable in respect of a compensation claim (or a claim of a prescribed description);(h) for the Society to be subrogated, to such extent as may be prescribed, to any rights and remedies of a person to whom a grant is made in relation to the loss in respect of which the grant is made.
	(3) The circumstances which may be prescribed by virtue of subsection (2)(a) include in particular—
	(a) the nature of the loss;(b) in a case within subsection (1)(a) or (b), the nature of the act or omission.
	(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(f), there is a deficiency if the monies mentioned in that subsection are insufficient to satisfy the claims of all persons with a beneficial interest in the monies.
	(5) The Society may prepare and publish guidance as to the criteria it will apply in deciding whether to make a grant in respect of a compensation claim, or any part of a compensation claim.
	(6) Where the Society decides—
	(a) not to make a grant in respect of a compensation claim or any part of a compensation claim, or(b) to make a grant of less than the amount claimed,it must give reasons for its decision.
	(7) Rules under subsection (1) which are not regulatory arrangements within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 are to be treated as such arrangements for the purposes of that Act.
	(8) In this section—
	"compensation claim" means a claim for the Society to make a grant of the kind mentioned in subsection (1);"prescribed" means prescribed in rules under subsection (1).
	36A Compensation funds
	(1) Compensation rules may require or authorise the Society to establish or maintain a fund or funds ("compensation funds") for the purpose of making grants in respect of compensation claims.
	(2) Compensation rules may require solicitors, or solicitors of a description prescribed in the rules, to make contributions to compensation funds of such amounts, at such times and in such circumstances, as may be prescribed in or determined in accordance with the rules.
	(3) Any amount payable by virtue of such a requirement may be recovered as a debt due to the Society.
	(4) Subsection (2) does not apply to a solicitor who is a Crown Prosecutor.
	(5) The Society may invest any money which forms part of a compensation fund in any investments in which trustees may invest under the general power of investment in section 3 of the Trustee Act 2000 (as restricted by sections 4 and 5 of that Act).
	(6) The Society may insure with authorised insurers, in relation to compensation funds, for such purposes and on such terms as it considers appropriate.
	(7) The Society may, in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in or determined in accordance with compensation rules—
	(a) borrow for the purposes of a compensation fund;(b) charge investments which form part of a compensation fund as security for borrowing by the Society for the purposes of that fund.
	(8) A compensation fund may be applied by the Society for the purposes mentioned in subsection (9) (in addition to the making of grants in respect of compensation claims).
	(9) The purposes are—
	(a) payment of premiums on insurance policies effected under subsection (6);(b) repayment of money borrowed by the Society for the purposes of the fund and payment of interest on any money so borrowed;(c) payment of any other costs, charges or expenses incurred by the Society in establishing, maintaining, protecting administering or applying the fund;(d) payment of any costs, charges or expenses incurred by the Society in exercising its powers under Part 2 of Schedule 1;(e) payment of any costs or damages incurred by the Society, its employees or agents as a result of proceedings against it or them for any act or omission of its or theirs in good faith and in the exercise or purported exercise of such powers.
	(10) In this section—
	"compensation claim" has the same meaning as in section 36;"compensation fund" has the meaning given by subsection (1);"compensation rules" means rules under section 36(1).""
	Schedule 16, page 229, line 18, after "(4A)" insert—
	"In relation to an appeal under subsection (3) the High Court may make such order as it thinks fit as to payment of costs.
	(4B) "
	Schedule 16, page 229, line 25, leave out "or a registered European lawyer"
	Schedule 16, page 229, line 31, leave out "or registered European lawyer"
	Schedule 16, page 229, leave out lines 44 and 45
	Schedule 16, page 229, line 47, leave out "or registered European lawyer"
	Schedule 16, page 230, leave out lines 6 to 13
	Schedule 16, page 230, line 17, leave out "or registered European lawyer"
	Schedule 16, page 230, line 19, leave out "or registered European lawyer"
	Schedule 16, page 230, line 27, after "body" insert "or manager or employee of such a body"
	Schedule 16, page 230, line 35, at end insert—
	"(2A) The Society may make regulations prescribing charges to be paid to the Society by persons who are the subject of an investigation by the Society as to whether there are grounds for the Society—
	(a) to make an order under subsection (2), or(b) to make an application to the Tribunal for it to make such an order.
	(2B) Regulations under subsection (2A) may—
	(a) make different provision for different cases or purposes;(b) provide for the whole or part of a charge payable under the regulations to be repaid in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations.
	(2C) Any charge which a person is required to pay under regulations under subsection (2A) is recoverable by the Society as a debt due to the Society from the person.""
	Schedule 16, page 230, line 41, leave out from "body" to end of line 48 and insert "has the same meaning as it has in relation to a body in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 197 of that Act);"
	Schedule 16, page 231, leave out lines 3 to 6
	Schedule 16, page 231, line 13, leave out "paragraph" and insert "section"
	Schedule 16, page 231, line 14, leave out "section 71 of the Legal Services Act 2007" and insert "Part 5 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (see sections 71 and 107 of that Act)"
	Schedule 16, page 231, line 16, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
	"(a) for subsection (1) substitute—"(1) It is an offence for a person in respect of whom there is in force an order under section 43(2) which contains provision within section 43(2)(a)—(a) to seek or accept any employment or remuneration from a solicitor in connection with the practice carried on by that solicitor, without previously informing the solicitor of the order;(b) to seek or accept any employment or remuneration from a recognised body, or a manager or employee of a recognised body, in connection with that body's business, without previously informing the body, or manager or employee, of the order.(1A) It is an offence for a person in respect of whom there is in force an order under section 43(2) which contains provision within section 43(2)(b) to seek or accept a position as a manager of a recognised body, without previously informing that body of the order.(1B) It is an offence for a person in respect of whom there is in force an order under section 43(2) which contains provision within section 43(2)(c) to seek or accept an interest in a recognised body from any person, without previously informing that person and (if different) the recognised body of the order.(1C) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1), (1A) or (1B) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.","
	Schedule 16, page 231, line 28, leave out from "section" to end of line 29 and insert "—
	"manager" has the same meaning as in section 43;
	"recognised body" means a body recognised under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985;
	and for the purposes of subsection (1B) a person seeks or accepts an interest in a recognised body if the person seeks or accepts an interest which if it were obtained by the person would result in the person having an interest in shares in that body within the meaning of Part 5 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (see sections 71 and 107 of that Act).""
	Schedule 16, page 231, line 33, at end insert ", and
	(d) after "possession" insert "or under the control"."
	Schedule 16, page 232, line 1, leave out "fee" and insert "charge"
	Schedule 16, page 232, line 4, leave out "fee" and insert "charge"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 467A not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 468 to 492A:
	Schedule 16, page 232, line 11, at end insert—
	"( ) After that subsection insert—
	"(5A) The Tribunal may do anything calculated to facilitate, or incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of any of its functions.""
	Schedule 16, page 232, line 43, after "£5,000"," insert—
	"( ) after subsection (3A) insert—"(3B) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this section permits the Tribunal to make an order requiring redress to be made in respect of any act or omission of any person.""
	Schedule 16, page 233, line 1, at end insert—
	" In section 48 (orders of Tribunal), in subsection (3) for "Subject to section 43(5), any" substitute "Any"."
	Schedule 16, page 233, line 3, at end insert—
	"( ) In subsection (2), after "(3)" insert "and to section 43(5) of the Administration of Justice Act 1985".
	( ) In subsection (3) for "legal aid work (within the meaning of that section)" substitute "providing representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service"."
	Schedule 16, page 234, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
	"(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Lord Chancellor",(b) after paragraph (d) insert—"(da) a member of the Legal Services Board nominated by that Board;", and(c) in paragraph (e) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Lord Chancellor"."
	Schedule 16, page 234, line 4, leave out from "for" to end of line 5 and insert ""(the Secretary of State" to "think fit" substitute "(the Lord Chancellor being one), may make general orders prescribing the general principles to be applied when determining"."
	Schedule 16, page 234, line 6, after "(3)" insert "—
	(a) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Lord Chancellor", and(b) "
	Schedule 16, page 234, line 30, at end insert ", and
	( ) for subsection (5) substitute—"(5) A provision in a contentious business agreement that the solicitor shall not be liable for negligence shall be void if the client is a natural person who, in entering that agreement, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession.(6) A provision in a contentious business agreement that the solicitor shall be relieved from any responsibility to which he would otherwise be subject as a solicitor shall be void.""
	Schedule 16, page 235, line 26, leave out paragraph 58 and insert—
	"58 (1) Section 69 (action to recover solicitor's costs) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) for "taxed" substitute "assessed".
	(3) For subsection (2) substitute—
	"(2) The requirements referred to in subsection (1) are that the bill must be—
	(a) signed in accordance with subsection (2A), and(b) delivered in accordance with subsection (2C).
	(2A) A bill is signed in accordance with this subsection if it is—
	(a) signed by the solicitor or on his behalf by an employee of the solicitor authorised by him to sign, or (b) enclosed in, or accompanied by, a letter which is signed as mentioned in paragraph (a) and refers to the bill.
	(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A) the signature may be an electronic signature.
	(2C) A bill is delivered in accordance with this subsection if—
	(a) it is delivered to the party to be charged with the bill personally,(b) it is delivered to that party by being sent to him by post to, or left for him at, his place of business, dwelling-house or last known place of abode, or(c) it is delivered to that party—(i) by means of an electronic communications network, or(ii) by other means but in a form that nevertheless requires the use of apparatus by the recipient to render it intelligible,and that party has indicated to the person making the delivery his willingness to accept delivery of a bill sent in the form and manner used.
	(2D) An indication to any person for the purposes of subsection (2C)(c)—
	(a) must state the address to be used and must be accompanied by such other information as that person requires for the making of the delivery;(b) may be modified or withdrawn at any time by a notice given to that person.
	(2E) Where a bill is proved to have been delivered in compliance with the requirements of subsections (2A) and (2C), it is not necessary in the first instance for the solicitor to prove the contents of the bill and it is to be presumed, until the contrary is shown, to be a bill bona fide complying with this Act.
	(2F) A bill which is delivered as mentioned in subsection (2C)(c) is to be treated as having been delivered on the first working day after the day on which it was sent (unless the contrary is proved)."
	(4) At the end insert—
	"(5) In this section references to an electronic signature are to be read in accordance with section 7(2) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 (c. 7).
	(6) In this section—
	"electronic communications network" has the same meaning as in the Communications Act 2003 (c. 21);"working day" means a day other than a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 (c. 80).""
	Schedule 16, page 237, line 18, after "committee," insert—
	"( ) a body corporate which is established for the purpose of providing services to the Council (or any committee of the Council) and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Society,"
	Schedule 16, page 237, leave out lines 21 to 23
	Schedule 16, page 237, line 27, after "committee," insert—
	"( ) a body corporate which is established for the purpose of providing services to the Council (or any committee of the Council) and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Society,"
	Schedule 16, page 237, line 29, at end insert—
	"(3A) Where, by virtue of subsection (1) or (3), any function may be discharged by a sub-committee, that sub-committee may arrange for the discharge of the function by an individual (whether or not a member of the Society's staff).
	(3B) Arrangements made under this section in respect of a function may provide that the function is to be exercised in accordance with the arrangements only (and not by the delegating body).
	(3C) In subsection (3B) "the delegating body" means—
	(a) in the case of arrangements under subsection (1), the Council,(b) in the case of arrangements under subsection (3), the committee,(c) in the case of arrangements under subsection (3A), the sub-committee.
	(3D) Subsections (3) and (3A) have effect subject to any contrary direction given by the Council.
	(3E) Where arrangements under subsection (3A) relate to a function delegated by a committee under subsection (3), subsection (3A) also has effect subject to any contrary direction given by that committee.
	(3F) Any power given by subsection (1), (3) or (3A) may be exercised so as to impose restrictions or conditions on the body or individual by whom the function is to be discharged."
	Schedule 16, page 237, line 43, at end insert—
	"(8A) In this section "wholly-owned subsidiary" has the meaning given by section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006."
	Schedule 16, page 238, line 8, at end insert—
	" Before section 87 (interpretation) insert—
	"86A Rules
	(1) Rules made by the Society under this Act may —
	(a) make provision generally or subject to exceptions or only in relation to specified cases;(b) make different provision for different cases or circumstances or for different purposes.
	(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), any rules prescribing a fee may provide for that fee to be reduced or waived in such circumstances as may be specified in the rules.""
	Schedule 16, page 238, line 9, after "(interpretation)" insert—
	"(a) in the definition of "client account", for "in" to the end substitute "subject to rules under section 32(1)(a)", and(b) "
	Schedule 16, page 238, line 11, at end insert—
	""duly certificated notary public""
	Schedule 16, page 238, line 13, at end insert—
	""replacement date""
	Schedule 16, page 238, line 14, at end insert—
	" In section 89 (consequential amendments etc.), omit subsection (7)."
	Schedule 16, page 238, line 19, at end insert—
	"( ) after that sub-paragraph insert—"(aa) the Society has reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of a solicitor ("S") in connection with—(i) the business of any person of whom S is or was an employee, or of any body of which S is or was a manager, or(ii) any business which is or was carried on by S as a sole trader;","
	Schedule 16, page 238, line 26, at end insert—
	"( ) in sub-paragraph (1)(h)—(i) for "Council are" substitute "Society is", and(ii) omit "sole","
	Schedule 16, page 238, line 27, leave out "(1)(h), (i)" and insert "(1)(i)"
	Schedule 16, page 238, line 31, after "(iii)" insert "for "an officer" substitute "a manager", and
	(iii) in that sub-paragraph"
	Schedule 16, page 238, leave out line 42 and insert—
	"( ) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—"(1A) In sub-paragraph (1) "manager" has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 197 of that Act).", and"
	Schedule 16, page 238, line 44, leave out from "delay)" to end of line 2 on page 239 and insert "—
	(a) for "10(3)" substitute "10(9)",(b) in paragraph (a)—(i) for "a complaint is made to the Society" substitute "the Society is satisfied",(ii) for "was instructed" substitute "is or was acting", and(iii) for "controlled trust" substitute "trust", and(c) in paragraph (c) for "Council regard" substitute "Society regards"."
	Schedule 16, page 239, line 12, at end insert ", and
	( ) in sub-paragraph (2)(c) for "to which the complaint relates" substitute "in connection with which the Society is satisfied there has been undue delay as mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of that paragraph"."
	Schedule 16, page 239, line 32, after "Society" insert ", having taken such steps to do so as are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case,"
	Schedule 16, page 239, line 36, after "Society)" insert "—
	(a) after "paragraph 6" insert "or 6A(3)", and(b) "
	Schedule 16, page 242, line 10, leave out paragraph 71 and insert—
	"71 Omit Schedule 2 (the compensation fund)."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 492AA to 492AC not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 492B:
	Schedule 16, page 244, line 27, after "(c)" insert "—
	(i) for "conditions" substitute "requirements", and(ii) "
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 492BA not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 492C and 492D:
	Schedule 16, page 244, line 35, leave out "requiring other applications under the rules" and insert "for the manner and form in which other applications under the rules are to be made, and requiring such applications"
	Schedule 16, page 245, line 28, after ""(2A)" insert—
	"Where the Society decides to recognise a body under this section it must grant that recognition subject to one or more conditions if—
	(a) the case is of a kind prescribed for the purposes of this section by rules made by the Society, and(b) the Society considers that it is in the public interest to do so.
	(2B) At any time while a body is recognised under this section the Society may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, direct that the body's recognition is to have effect subject to such conditions as the Society may think fit.
	"Prescribed" means prescribed by rules made by the Society.
	(2C) The conditions which may be imposed under subsection (2A) or (2B) include—
	(a) conditions requiring the body to take specified steps that will, in the opinion of the Society, be conducive to the carrying on by the body of an efficient business;(b) conditions which prohibit the body from taking any specified steps except with the approval of the Society."Specified" means specified in the condition.
	(2D) Rules made by the Society may make provision about when conditions imposed under this section take effect (including provision conferring power on the Society to direct that a condition is not to have effect until the conclusion of any appeal in relation to it).
	(2E) Section 86A of the 1974 Act applies to rules under this section as it applies to rules under that Act.
	(2F) "
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 492E to 492G not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 493:
	Schedule 16, page 245, line 37, at end insert—
	"( ) In subsection (7) for "Secretary of State" (in both places) substitute "Lord Chancellor"."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 493A to 493C not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 494:
	Schedule 16, page 245, line 43, leave out from "body," to end of line 2 on page 246 and insert "has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 197 of that Act);","
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 494A to 494F not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 495 and 496:
	Schedule 16, page 246, line 5, leave out "foreign" and insert "European"
	Schedule 16, page 246, line 10, leave out "by multi-national partnerships" and insert "lawyers of other jurisdictions"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 497 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendments Nos. 497ZA to 497ZD not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 497A:
	Schedule 16, page 246, leave out lines 21 to 24 and insert—
	"(a) at least one of the partners is—(i) a solicitor,(ii) a registered European lawyer, or(iii) a qualifying body, and(b) the partnership is not a licensable body."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 498 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 499 and 500 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 500A:
	Schedule 16, page 246, leave out lines 28 to 31 and insert—
	"(a) at least one of the members of the body is—(i) a solicitor, (ii) a registered European lawyer, or(iii) a qualifying body, and(b) the body is not a licensable body."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 501 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 502 to 504 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 504A:
	Schedule 16, page 246, leave out lines 34 to 37 and insert—
	"(a) at least one of the persons within subsection (5) is—(i) a solicitor,(ii) a registered European lawyer, or(iii) a qualifying body, and(b) the body is not a licensable body."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 505 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 506 and 507 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendments Nos. 507A and 507B not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 508:
	Schedule 16, page 247, line 7, at end insert—
	""licensable body" has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see sections 71 and 107 of that Act);"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 508ZA not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 508A and 509:
	Schedule 16, page 247, line 9, at end insert—
	""qualifying body" means a body in respect of which—
	(a) the management and control condition is satisfied by virtue of—(i) subsection (2)(a)(i) or (ii) and (b),(ii) subsection (3)(a)(i) or (ii) and (b), or(iii) subsection (4)(a)(i) or (ii) and (b), and(b) the services condition is satisfied;"
	Schedule 16, page 247, leave out lines 14 and 15
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 509A not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 510:
	Schedule 16, page 247, line 19, leave out "solicitors, registered European lawyers or registered foreign lawyers" and insert "solicitors or registered European lawyers"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 510A and 510B not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 511:
	Schedule 16, page 247, line 29, leave out "section 71 of the Legal Services Act 2007" and insert "Part 5 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (see sections 71 and 107 of that Act)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 511A to 511D not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 512:
	Schedule 16, page 248, line 25, at end insert—
	"(1) Section 43 (jurisdiction and powers of Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in relation to complaints against solicitors) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)(a) for "(7) to" substitute "(9) to".
	(3) After subsection (3) insert—
	"(3A) Nothing in section 154 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (approved regulators not to make provision for redress) prevents an order being made under subsection (3)."
	(4) For subsection (5) substitute—
	"(5) An appeal under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against an order of the Tribunal under subsection (3) lies only at the instance of the solicitor with respect to whom the legal aid complaint was made.""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 512A not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 513 to 515:
	Schedule 16, page 248, line 30, leave out ""corporate"," and insert "—
	(i) paragraph (b) and the "or" immediately preceding it,(ii) "corporate", and(iii) "or application","
	Schedule 16, page 248, line 30, at end insert—
	"( ) after that sub-paragraph insert—
	"(2A) References in this Schedule to a manager or employee of a recognised body, in relation to a complaint (other than such a complaint as is mentioned in paragraph 16(1A)(a)), include references to a person who was such a manager or employee at the time when the conduct to which the complaint relates took place.","
	Schedule 16, page 248, line 32, at end insert—
	"( ) in sub-paragraph (5) for "sub-paragraphs (3) and (4)" substitute "sub-paragraphs (4) and (6)","
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 515A and 515B not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 516:
	Schedule 16, page 248, line 36, leave out from "body," to end of line 47 and insert "has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 197 of that Act);"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 516A to 516E not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 517 to 517A:
	Schedule 16, page 249, line 2, leave out "9" and insert "9A"
	Schedule 16, page 249, line 4, leave out paragraph 78 and insert—
	"78 For paragraph 2 of that Schedule (appeal against refusal of Council to grant recognition) substitute—
	"Appeal against refusal of Society to grant recognition etc
	2 (1) A body may appeal to the High Court against—
	(a) a decision to refuse an application by the body for recognition under section 9, (b) a decision to impose a condition under subsection (2A) of that section on the body's recognition under that section,(c) a decision to impose a condition under subsection (2B) of that section on the body's recognition under that section.
	(2) A recognised body whose recognition is subject to a condition within section 9(2C)(b) may appeal to the High Court against any decision by the Society to refuse to approve the taking of any step for the purposes of that condition.
	(3) Rules made by the Society may make provision, as respects any application for recognition that is neither granted nor refused by the Society within such period as may be specified in the rules, for enabling an appeal to be brought under this paragraph in relation to the application as if it had been refused by the Society.
	(4) On an appeal under sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the High Court may—
	(a) affirm the decision of the Society,(b) direct the Society to grant the body recognition under section 9 free from conditions or subject to such conditions as the High Court may think fit,(c) direct the Society not to recognise the body,(d) if the Society has recognised the body, by order suspend the recognition, or(e) make such other order as the High Court thinks fit.
	(5) On an appeal under sub-paragraph (1)(c), the High Court may—
	(a) affirm the decision of the Society,(b) direct that the body's recognition under section 9 is to have effect subject to such conditions as the High Court may think fit,(c) by order revoke the direction given by the Society under section 9(2B), or(d) make such other order as the High Court thinks fit.
	(6) On an appeal under sub-paragraph (2), the High Court may—
	(a) affirm the decision of the Society,(b) direct the Society to approve the taking of one or more steps for the purposes of a condition within section 9(2C)(b), or(c) make such other order as the High Court thinks fit.
	(7) In relation to an appeal under this paragraph, the High Court may make such order as it thinks fit as to payment of costs.
	(8) The decision of the High Court on an appeal under this paragraph is final.""
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 518 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 519 to 527:
	Schedule 16, page 249, line 24, leave out paragraphs 79 and 80 and insert—
	"79 For paragraph 3 of that Schedule (accounts rules) substitute—
	"3 (1) This paragraph applies where rules made under section 32(1) of the 1974 Act are applied—
	(a) to recognised bodies in accordance with section 9(2)(f) of this Act, or (b) to managers or employees of such bodies in accordance with section 9(2)(fb) of this Act.
	(2) The Society may disclose a report on or information about the accounts of a recognised body, or a manager or employee of a recognised body, obtained in pursuance of such rules for use—
	(a) in investigating the possible commission of an offence by the body or any of its managers or employees, and(b) in connection with any prosecution of the body or any of its managers or employees consequent on the investigation.""
	Schedule 16, page 250, line 12, leave out paragraphs 83 and 84 and insert—
	"83 For paragraph 4A of that Schedule (inspection of bank accounts) substitute—
	"4A (1) This paragraph applies where rules made under section 33A(1) of the 1974 Act are applied—
	(a) to recognised bodies in accordance with section 9(2)(f) of this Act, or(b) to managers or employees of such bodies in accordance with section 9(2)(fb) of this Act.
	(2) The Society may disclose information about the accounts of a recognised body, or a manager or employee of a recognised body, obtained in pursuance of such rules for use—
	(a) in investigating the possible commission of an offence by the body or any of its managers or employees, and(b) in connection with any prosecution of the body or any of its managers or employees consequent on the investigation.""
	Schedule 16, page 250, line 34, leave out paragraph 87 and insert—
	"87 For paragraph 6 of that Schedule (compensation fund) substitute—
	"6 (1) Section 36 of the 1974 Act applies in relation to recognised bodies as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) there were substituted—
	"(a) an act or omission of a recognised body or former recognised body;(b) an act or omission of a manager or employee, or former manager or employee, of a recognised body or former recognised body;".
	(2) Section 36A(2) and (3) of the 1974 Act applies in relation to recognised bodies as it applies in relation to solicitors.""
	Schedule 16, page 252, leave out lines 40 to 46 and insert—
	""(2) No recognised body (or manager or employee of such a body) may, except in accordance with a written permission granted by the Society under this paragraph, permit a person to whom sub-paragraph (2A) applies to—
	(a) be a manager of the body, or(b) have an interest in the body.
	(2A) This sub-paragraph applies to a person who to the knowledge of the recognised body (or, as the case may be, the manager or employee) is a person—
	(a) who is disqualified from practising as a solicitor by reason of one of the facts mentioned in section 41(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the 1974 Act (name struck off the roll, suspension etc), or(b) in respect of whom there is a direction in force under section 47(2)(g) of that Act (prohibition on restoration to roll)."
	Schedule 16, page 253, line 10, after "(5)" insert—
	"In relation to an appeal under sub-paragraph (4) the High Court may make such order as it thinks fit as to payment of costs.
	(5A) "
	Schedule 16, page 253, leave out lines 12 to 15
	Schedule 16, page 253, line 16, leave out paragraph 90 and insert—
	"90 In paragraph 10 of that Schedule (failure to disclose striking off or suspension)—
	(a) the existing paragraph becomes sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph,(b) in that sub-paragraph after "recognised body" insert "(or any manager or employee of such a body)", and(c) after that sub-paragraph insert—"(2) It is an offence for a person ("P") to whom sub-paragraph (3) applies—(a) to seek or accept from any person an interest in a recognised body, without previously informing that person (and, if different, the recognised body) that P is a person to whom that sub-paragraph applies, or(b) to seek or accept a position as a manager of a recognised body, without previously informing that body that P is such a person.(3) This sub-paragraph applies to a person—(a) who is disqualified from practising as a solicitor by reason of one of the facts mentioned in section 41(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the 1974 Act (name struck off the roll, suspension etc), or(b) in respect of whom there is a direction in force under section 47(2)(g) of that Act (prohibition on restoration to roll).(4) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.(5) Subsection (2) of section 42 of the 1974 Act applies in relation to an offence under sub-paragraph (2) as it applies in relation to an offence under that section.(6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a) a person seeks or accepts an interest in a recognised body if the person seeks or accepts an interest which if it were obtained by the person would result in the person having an interest in shares in that body within the meaning of Part 5 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (see sections 71 and 107 of that Act).""
	Schedule 16, page 253, line 26, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
	"(a) for sub-paragraph (1) substitute— "(1) The Society may give a recognised body, or any manager or employee of a recognised body, an information notice, if the Society is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of investigating—(a) whether the recognised body, or any of its managers or employees, has failed to comply with any requirement imposed by or by virtue of this Act or any rules made by the Society and applicable to the body, manager or employee by virtue of section 9 of this Act, or(b) whether there are grounds for making, or making an application to the Tribunal for it to make, an order under section 43(2) of the 1974 Act.(1A) An information notice is a notice which requires the recipient of the notice to produce or deliver to any person appointed by the Society all relevant documents in the possession, or under the control, of the recipient.(1B) An information notice may require the documents to be produced or delivered at a time and place fixed by the Society.",(b) in sub-paragraph (2) for "by sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph" substitute "by sub-paragraphs (1) to (1B) of this paragraph",(c) in sub-paragraph (2)(a) after "the body" insert ", manager or employee", (d) in sub-paragraph (2)(b) for "sub-paragraph (1)" substitute "sub-paragraphs (1) to (1B)", and(e) in sub-paragraph (2)(c) for "(1)" substitute "(1A)"."
	Schedule 16, page 254, line 7, leave out "fee" and insert "charge"
	Schedule 16, page 254, line 10, leave out "fee which a person" and insert "charge which a recognised body"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 527A not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 528 to 551:
	Schedule 16, page 254, line 19, leave out from "sub-paragraph" to end of line 20 and insert "for "section 34 of the 1974 Act" substitute "any requirement imposed by or by virtue of this Act","
	Schedule 16, page 254, line 21, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
	"(c) for paragraph (c) of that sub-paragraph substitute—"(c) a complaint that the body has acted in contravention of section 41 of the 1974 Act or paragraph 9(2) of this Schedule or of any conditions subject to which a permission has been granted under section 41 of that Act or that paragraph of this Schedule; or", and"
	Schedule 16, page 254, line 36, after "Act" insert "or paragraph 9(2) of this Schedule"
	Schedule 16, page 254, line 38, at end insert "or for the purposes of paragraph 9(2) of this Schedule"
	Schedule 16, page 255, line 9, leave out from "sub-paragraph" to end of line 10 and insert "for "section 34 of the 1974 Act" substitute "any requirement imposed by or by virtue of this Act","
	Schedule 16, page 255, line 25, leave out "16A(1A)" and insert "16(1A)"
	Schedule 16, page 255, line 34, leave out "or a registered European lawyer"
	Schedule 16, page 255, line 42, leave out "or registered European lawyer"
	Schedule 16, page 255, line 44, leave out "or registered European lawyer"
	Schedule 16, page 256, line 4, after "body" insert "or manager or employee of such a body"
	Schedule 16, page 256, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) Subsections (1) to (1C), (3) and (4) of section 44 of the 1974 Act (offences in connection with orders under section 43(2) of that Act) apply in relation to an order under sub-paragraph (2)(c) as they apply in relation to an order under section 43(2) of that Act, except that references in those subsections to provision within section 43(2)(a), (b) or (c) of that Act are to be read as references to provision within sub-paragraph (3)(a), (b) or (c)."
	Schedule 16, page 256, line 14, leave out "14(3A)" and insert "15(3A)"
	Schedule 16, page 256, line 17, leave out "that Act" and insert "the 1974 Act"
	Schedule 16, page 256, line 29, leave out paragraph (a)
	Schedule 16, page 256, line 32, at end insert—
	"( ) for "legal aid work" substitute "providing representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service", andomit sub-paragraph (2)."
	Schedule 16, page 257, line 1, leave out paragraphs 102 and 103 and insert—
	"102 In paragraph 23 (orders as to remuneration for non-contentious business)—
	(a) the existing provision becomes sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph, (b) in that sub-paragraph for "regulating (in accordance with paragraph 22)" substitute "prescribing (by virtue of paragraph 22) general principles to be applied when determining", and(c) in that sub-paragraph for paragraph (b) substitute—"(b) in paragraph (d), the reference to the solicitor were a reference to any manager or employee of the recognised body who is an authorised person.", and(d) after that sub-paragraph insert—"(2) In this paragraph "authorised person" means a person who is an authorised person in relation to an activity which is a reserved legal activity, within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 17 of that Act).""
	Schedule 16, page 257, line 15, leave out paragraph 104 and insert—
	"104 For paragraph 24 of that Schedule (effect of contentious business agreements) substitute—
	"24 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to a contentious business agreement made between a recognised body and a client.
	(2) A provision in the agreement that the body shall not be liable for the negligence of any of its managers or employees shall be void if the client is a natural person who, in entering that agreement, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession.
	(3) A provision in the agreement that the body shall be relieved from any responsibility to which it would otherwise be subject in the course of carrying on its business as a recognised body shall be void.""
	Schedule 16, page 257, line 19, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
	"(a) for sub-paragraph (1)(b) substitute—"(b) a relevant insolvency event occurs in relation to the body;","
	Schedule 16, page 257, line 26, at end insert ", and
	( ) after that sub-paragraph insert—"(4) For the purposes of this paragraph a relevant insolvency event occurs in relation to a recognised body if— (a) a resolution for a voluntary winding-up of the body is passed without a declaration of solvency under section 89 of the Insolvency Act 1986;(b) the body enters administration within the meaning of paragraph 1(2)(b) of Schedule B1 to that Act;(c) an administrative receiver within the meaning of section 251 of that Act is appointed;(d) a meeting of creditors is held in relation to the body under section 95 of that Act (creditors' meeting which has the effect of converting a members' voluntary winding up into a creditors' voluntary winding up);(e) an order for the winding up of the body is made.""
	Schedule 16, page 257, line 33, after "officer"," insert—
	"( ) after "the body" (in the second place) insert "or any manager or employee of the body","
	Schedule 16, page 257, line 40, at end insert—
	" In paragraph 28 (power of court to order recognised body to pay over clients' money) after "client" (in the third place) insert "or any manager or employee of such a body"."
	Schedule 16, page 257, line 41, leave out paragraph 107 and insert—
	"107 For paragraph 29 of that Schedule (actions to recover costs) substitute—
	"29 (1) Subsection (2A) of section 69 of the 1974 Act shall have effect in relation to a bill of costs delivered by a recognised body as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted—
	"(a) signed on behalf of the recognised body by any manager or employee of the body authorised by it to do so, or(b) enclosed in, or accompanied by, a letter which is so signed and refers to the bill."
	(2) Subsection (2E) of that section shall have effect in relation to such a bill as if for "the solicitor" there were substituted "the recognised body".""
	Schedule 16, page 257, line 42, at end insert—
	" In paragraph 30 (power of Society to inspect files relating to certain proceedings), for paragraph (b) substitute—
	"(b) for the appointment of an administrative receiver within the meaning of section 251 of the Insolvency Act 1986; or"."
	Schedule 16, page 257, line 43, at end insert ", and
	(b) after "bank" insert "or building society"."
	Schedule 16, page 258, line 3, after "bank" insert "or building society"
	Schedule 16, page 258, line 10, at end insert ", and
	( ) for "it" substitute "the body or manager".
	( ) Omit sub-paragraph (1)(b)."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 552 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 552A to 561A:
	Schedule 16, page 260, line 24, leave out paragraph 115 and insert—
	"115 The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.
	115A In section 89 (foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors)—
	(a) for subsection (3)(a)(iv) substitute—"(iv) sections 36 and 36A (compensation grants); and",(b) in subsection (5) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Lord Chancellor", (c) in paragraph (a) of that subsection for "the commencement of this section" substitute "or in the same Session as the Legal Services Act 2007 was passed",(d) in subsection (6) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Lord Chancellor",(e) in subsection (7) for "Secretary of State" (in both places) substitute "Lord Chancellor",(f) in paragraph (a) of that subsection for "the commencement of this section" substitute "or in the same Session as the Legal Services Act 2007 was passed", and(g) after subsection (8) insert—"(8A) Rules and regulations made by the Law Society under, or by virtue of, this section or Schedule 14 which are not regulatory arrangements within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 are to be treated as such arrangements for the purposes of that Act."
	115B Schedule 14 to that Act (foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies) is amended as follows."
	Schedule 16, page 260, line 33, at end insert—
	"( ) omit sub-paragraph (3),"
	Schedule 16, page 260, line 38, at end insert—
	"( ) in that sub-paragraph, after paragraph (b) insert "and(c) the making available to the public of the information contained in the register (including the manner in which, and hours during which, the information is to be made so available and whether the information is to be made available free of charge).","
	Schedule 16, page 260, line 39, at end insert—
	" After paragraph 2 insert—
	"2A (1) The Society may direct that a foreign lawyer's registration is to have effect subject to such conditions as the Society thinks fit to impose.
	(2) A direction under sub-paragraph (1) may be given in respect of a foreign lawyer
	(a) at the time he is first registered, or(b) at any time when the registration has effect.""
	Schedule 16, page 260, line 44, at end insert "and—
	(ii) omit "by virtue of his being a member of that partnership","
	Schedule 16, page 260, line 45, leave out "and (i)"
	Schedule 16, page 260, line 46, at end insert—
	"( ) after sub-paragraph (3)(e) insert—"(ea) the Society is satisfied that he has abandoned his practice;",( ) in sub-paragraph (3)(i)—(i) for "Council are" substitute "Society is", and(ii) for "an officer" (in both places) substitute "a manager",( ) after that sub-paragraph insert—"(j) the Society is satisfied that it is necessary to exercise the intervention powers (or any of them) in relation to the registered foreign lawyer to protect—(i) the interests of clients (or former or potential clients) of the registered foreign lawyer or the multi-national partnership, or(ii) the interests of the beneficiaries of any trust of which the registered foreign lawyer is or was a trustee.","
	Schedule 16, page 261, line 1, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
	"( ) omit sub-paragraph (4),( ) in sub-paragraph (5)(a) for "a complaint is made to the Society" substitute "the Society is satisfied","
	Schedule 16, page 261, leave out line 3
	Schedule 16, page 261, line 5, at end insert ", and
	( ) after sub-paragraph (9) insert—"(10) In this paragraph "manager", in relation to a recognised body, has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 197 of that Act).""
	Schedule 16, page 261, line 6, leave out paragraphs 120 and 121 and insert—
	"120 For paragraph 6 (compensation fund) substitute—
	"6 Section 36 of the 1974 Act applies in relation to registered foreign lawyers as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) there were substituted—
	"(a) an act or omission of a registered foreign lawyer or former registered foreign lawyer;(b) an act or omission of an employee or former employee of a registered foreign lawyer or former registered foreign lawyer;".
	121 For paragraph 7 (contributions to fund) substitute—
	"7 Section 36A(2) and (3) of the 1974 Act applies in relation to registered foreign lawyers as it applies in relation to solicitors.""
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 561B not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 562 to 563:
	Schedule 16, page 262, line 19, at end insert "and
	(ii) for "2(3)" substitute "2A","
	Schedule 16, page 262, line 26, after "(4)" insert—
	"In relation to an appeal under this paragraph the High Court may make such order as it thinks fit as to payment of costs.
	(5) "
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 564 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 565:
	Before Clause 174, insert the following new Clause—
	"Unqualified person not to pretend to be a barrister
	(1) It is an offence for a person who is not a barrister—
	(a) wilfully to pretend to be a barrister, or(b) with the intention of implying falsely that that person is a barrister to take or use any name, title or description.
	(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), and(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).
	(3) In relation to an offence under subsection (1) committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in subsection (2)(a) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 629 and 720. I said on the last day in Committee that I would take away the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on barristers and the role of the Inns of Court. I have now tabled these amendments which seek to address his concern by ensuring that the Bill acknowledges and defines the term "barrister", creates a new offence of pretending to be a barrister when not qualified, and recognises the extremely important and valuable role played by the Inns of Court in training barristers.
	The Inns' role in calling and disbarring barristers is currently recognised in statute under Section 31 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 in respect of rights of audience. However, as a result of the changes to the way in which reserved legal activities will be granted in the future, it has been necessary to repeal that section. These amendments seek to address any imbalance caused and ensure that the public, consumers and members of the profession can be confident that any person using the title "barrister" has been properly educated and trained, and that they are appropriately regulated.
	The offence provision is important as it brings parity with offences in respect of solicitors under Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974, so consumers can be confident that the same rules apply for both recognised professions. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will feel that I have reflected his concerns appropriately in this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, rather like a brief gleaming shaft of sunlight in an otherwise cloudy sky, I am delighted that the Government have tabled these amendments. They allow me not to press my own. This, I know the noble Baroness will agree, is an important matter. It is vital that an appropriate definition of "barrister" is included in the Bill, with proper protection. The noble Baroness has kindly done that. We are entirely satisfied with the outcome and I am most grateful to her.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree that these amendments are important and I am grateful to be his ray of sunshine.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 17 [Licensed conveyancing]:

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendment No. 565A:
	Schedule 17, page 264, line 9, leave out "a qualified" and insert "an"

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 566 to 586, 587A to 596 and 651. These are minor and consequential amendments that address a number of anomalies which have arisen as a result of amendments to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 and the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. For example, we have brought forward amendments to remove references to "complaints" in both Acts, avoiding confusion with Part 6 of the Bill. We have also discussed with the Council for Licensed Conveyancers the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in Committee. These amendments give the council additional powers to allow it to delegate its functions further, to directly reprimand a recognised body and to remove the requirement for an accountant's report to be prepared by a person qualified as company auditor under the Companies Act 1989 in favour of allowing those accounts to be audited by an accountant. We are persuaded that these powers are necessary to ensure that the council can effectively and efficiently discharge its regulatory functions, so this group of amendments also covers those matters. I beg to move.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I support these amendments and I am most grateful to the Government.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 566 to 573A:
	Schedule 17, page 264, line 11, at end insert—
	"(eb) after having been disqualified under section 97 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (disqualification from being manager or employee of a licensed body etc);(ec) after his holding of a restricted interest in a licensed body has been approved subject to conditions under paragraph 17, 28 or 33 of Schedule 13 to that Act (ownership of licensed bodies) or objected to under paragraph 19, 31 or 36 of that Schedule;"
	Schedule 17, page 264, line 14, at end insert "(eb), (ec),"
	Schedule 17, page 264, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) In subsection (5) for "or" at the end of paragraph (a) substitute—
	"(aa) pending the hearing and determination of any appeal brought by the applicant under paragraph 18, 20, 29, 32, 34 or 37 of Schedule 13 to the Legal Services Act 2007;(ab) pending the review by a licensing authority, in accordance with its licensing rules, of a determination that the applicant should be disqualified under section 97 of the Legal Services Act 2007; or".
	( ) After that subsection insert—
	"(6) In this section—
	"licensed body", "licensing authority" and "licensing rules" have the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see sections 70, 72 and 81 of that Act);
	"restricted interest", in relation to a body, has the same meaning as in Schedule 13 to that Act (ownership of licensed bodies).""
	Schedule 17, page 264, leave out line 23 and insert—
	"( ) Section 17 (imposition of conditions during currency of licence) is amended as follows.
	( ) In subsection (2)(a)—"
	Schedule 17, page 264, line 25, after ""(ea)," insert "(eb), (ec),"
	Schedule 17, page 264, line 25, at end insert—
	"( ) In subsection (4), for "or" at the end of paragraph (a) substitute—
	"(aa) pending the hearing and determination of any appeal brought by the licensed conveyancer under paragraph 18, 20, 29, 32, 34 or 37 of Schedule 13 to the Legal Services Act 2007;(ab) pending the review by a licensing authority, in accordance with its licensing rules, of a determination that the licensed conveyancer should be disqualified under section 97 of the Legal Services Act 2007; or".
	( ) After subsection (5) insert—
	"(6) In this section "licensing authority" and "licensing rules" have the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see sections 72 and 81 of that Act).""
	Schedule 17, page 264, line 25, at end insert—
	"After section 17 insert—
	"17A Variation of conditions
	(1) This section applies where a licensed conveyancer's licence has effect subject to conditions.
	(2) On an application made by the licensed conveyancer, the Council may in prescribed circumstances direct—
	(a) the removal of a condition;(b) the variation of a condition in the manner described in the application.
	(3) "Prescribed" means prescribed by rules made by the Council.
	(4) Section 14 (applications for licences) applies in relation to an application under this section as it applies in relation to applications for a licence under this Part.""
	Schedule 17, page 264, line 30, after "1(1)(a)(i)," insert "(aa),"
	Schedule 17, page 265, line 13, leave out "conditionally" and insert "unconditionally"
	Schedule 17, page 265, line 19, at end insert—
	" In section 22 (keeping of accounts and establishment of client accounts)—
	(a) in subsection (3)(a) omit "qualified", and(b) for subsections (4) and (5) substitute—"(4) Provision made in rules by virtue of subsection (3)(a) may provide that the reports delivered to the Council must be reports given by accountants in respect of whom requirements prescribed by the rules are met.""
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 573B not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 574 to 586:
	Schedule 17, page 265, line 23, after ""consideration"," insert—
	"( ) omit paragraph (b),"
	Schedule 17, page 265, line 31, at end insert—
	"( ) Omit subsection (2).
	( ) In subsection (3) omit—
	(a) "or (2)",(b) "or complaint" (in both places), and(c) "or paragraph (b)"."
	Schedule 17, page 265, line 36, at end insert—
	"( ) In subsection (5) omit "or complaint" (in both places)."
	Schedule 17, page 266, line 39, at end insert—
	"( ) In subsection (2), for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection, the reference to costs includes costs incurred in connection with a preliminary investigation of the allegation under section 24(1A)."
	Schedule 17, page 267, line 22, at end insert—
	" In section 25 (the Discipline and Appeals Committee), in subsection (1)(b) for "sections 27 to" substitute "section 24A, 27, 28 or"."
	Schedule 17, page 267, line 44, at end insert—
	"(2B) In subsection (2A), for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection, the reference to costs includes costs incurred in connection with a preliminary investigation of the allegation under section 24(1A)."
	Schedule 17, page 268, line 26, at end insert—
	" In section 29 (appeals from decisions of Council in relation to licences)—
	(a) in subsection (1), omit "or" at the end of paragraph (b),(b) in that subsection, at the end of paragraph (c) insert "or(d) refuses an application made by that person under section 17A,", and(c) in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert—"(ba) in the case of an appeal under subsection (1)(d), by order direct the Council to grant the application;"."
	Schedule 17, page 268, leave out line 27 and insert—
	" (1) Section 31 (application of Schedule 5) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2) omit—
	(a) "or complaint" (in each place), and(b) "or paragraph (b)".
	(3) In subsection (3), for "and 12" substitute "to 12A".
	(4) In subsection (4) omit "or complaint"."
	Schedule 17, page 268, line 38, at end insert—
	"( ) In subsection (1)(c) for "conditions" substitute "requirements"."
	Schedule 17, page 269, leave out line 19 and insert—
	"(d) omit paragraph (d),"
	Schedule 17, page 269, line 43, after "(3A)" insert—
	"Rules made by the Council may provide for the Council to grant a body recognition under this section subject to one or more conditions.
	(3B) At any time while a body is recognised under this section, the Council may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, direct that the body's recognition is to have effect subject to such conditions as the Council may think fit.
	"Prescribed" means prescribed by rules made by the Council.
	(3C) The conditions which may be imposed under subsection (3A) or (3B) include—
	(a) conditions restricting the kinds of conveyancing services that may be provided by the body;(b) conditions imposed by reference to criteria of general application;(c) conditions requiring the body to take any specified steps that will, in the opinion of the Council, be conducive to the body carrying on an efficient business;and conditions may be imposed despite the fact that they may result in expenditure being incurred by the body.
	(3D) On an application made by a recognised body, the Council may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, direct—
	(a) the removal of a condition subject to which the body's recognition has effect;(b) the variation of such a condition in the manner described in the application.
	(3E) For the purposes of subsection (3D)—
	(a) section 14 applies in relation to an application under that subsection as it applies in relation to an application for a licence under this Part of this Act, and(b) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made by the Council.
	(3F) Rules under subsection (3A) or (3B) may make provision about when conditions imposed take effect (including provision conferring power on the Council to direct that a condition is not to have effect until the conclusion of any appeal in relation to it).
	(3G) "
	Schedule 17, page 269, leave out line 49 and insert—
	"(b) for paragraph (b) substitute—"(b) that a body's recognition under this section does not have effect subject to any conditions or has effect subject to any particular conditions,"."
	Schedule 17, page 270, line 43, leave out "section 71 of the Legal Services Act 2007" and insert "Part 5 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (see sections 71 and 107 of that Act)"
	Schedule 17, page 271, line 10, at end insert—
	" In section 34 (modification of existing enactments relating to conveyancing etc), omit subsection (2)(c) to (e)."
	Schedule 17, page 272, line 14, at end insert "in subsection (1)—
	( ) in the definition of "client", in paragraph (a) omit "or his firm","
	Schedule 17, page 272, line 15, leave out "in subsection (1),"
	Schedule 17, page 272, line 16, leave out "in that subsection,"
	Schedule 17, page 272, line 17, leave out from "body," to ", and" in line 27 and insert "has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 197 of that Act);""
	Schedule 17, page 273, line 5, at end insert—
	"( ) In paragraph 10 for "Secretary of State" (in both places) substitute "Lord Chancellor".
	( ) In paragraph 11(3) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Lord Chancellor"."
	Schedule 17, page 273, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) after that sub-paragraph insert—"(aa) the Council has reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of a licensed conveyancer ("L") in connection with—(i) the business of any person of whom L is or was an employee, or of any body of which L is or was a manager, or(ii) any business which is or was carried on by L as a sole trader;","
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 587 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 587A to 596:
	Schedule 17, page 273, line 21, at end insert—
	"( ) after sub-paragraph (1)(e) insert—"(ea) the Council is satisfied that a licensed conveyancer has abandoned his practice;(eb) the Council is satisfied that a licensed conveyancer has been practising in breach of any conditions subject to which his licence has effect;","
	Schedule 17, page 274, line 33, after "Council" insert ", having taken such steps to do so as are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case,"
	Schedule 17, page 277, line 25, at end insert ", and
	(b) in sub-paragraph (2) omit—(i) "or complaint" (in both places), and(ii) "or (b)"."
	Schedule 17, page 277, line 35, at end insert—
	"(ab) it is alleged that a recognised body (while a recognised body) has failed to comply with a condition subject to which its recognition has effect.","
	Schedule 17, page 277, line 36, after "omit" insert "—
	(i) paragraph (b), and(ii) "
	Schedule 17, page 278, line 7, leave out from "satisfied" to "the Committee" in line 12 and insert—
	"(a) in a case within paragraph 3(1)(a), that a recognised body has failed to comply with any such rules as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) of that paragraph, or(b) in a case within paragraph 3(1)(aa), that a manager or employee has failed to comply with any such rules as are mentioned in that paragraph, or(c) in a case within paragraph 3(1)(ab), that a recognised body has failed to comply with any condition mentioned in that paragraph,"
	Schedule 17, page 278, line 24, at end insert—
	"(2A) In sub-paragraph (2), for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of that sub-paragraph, the reference to costs includes costs incurred in connection with a preliminary investigation of the allegation under paragraph 3."
	Schedule 17, page 279, line 10, after "3(1)(a)" insert "or (ab)"
	Schedule 17, page 279, line 10, at end insert—
	"( ) in that sub-paragraph, after paragraph (b) insert ", or(c) has failed to comply with any such condition as is mentioned in paragraph 3(1)(ab),","
	Schedule 17, page 279, line 13, at end insert—
	"( ) after paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph insert—"(ba) an order reprimanding that body;(bb) an order that the recognition of that body under section 32 is to have effect subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order;","
	Schedule 17, page 280, line 6, after "person." insert—
	"(2E) In sub-paragraph (2D), for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of that sub-paragraph, the reference to costs includes costs incurred in connection with a preliminary investigation of the allegation under paragraph 3."
	Schedule 17, page 281, line 2, leave out from "recognition)," to end of line and insert—
	"(a) in sub-paragraph (1) omit "corporate",(b) in paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph for "restrictions" substitute "conditions",(c) after that paragraph insert ", or (c) decides to give a direction in relation to that body under section 32(3B), or(d) refuses an application by that body under section 32(3D),",(d) in sub-paragraph (2) for "this paragraph" substitute "sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b)",(e) in paragraph (a) of that sub-paragraph—(i) for "restrictions" (in first place) substitute "conditions", and(ii) for "restrictions falling within subsection (3)(d) of that section" substitute "conditions", and(f) after that sub-paragraph insert—"(2A) On an appeal under sub-paragraph (1)(c), the Discipline and Appeals Committee may—(a) revoke the direction of the Council under section 32(3B),(b) direct that the body's recognition is to have effect subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Council in the direction, or(c) affirm the decision of the Council,and the Committee may make such order as to the payment of costs by the Council or by that body as they think fit.(2B) On an appeal under sub-paragraph (1)(d), the Discipline and Appeals Committee may—(a) direct the Council to grant the application, or(b) affirm the decision of the Council,and the Committee may make such order as to the payment of costs by the Council or by that body as they think fit.""
	Schedule 17, page 281, line 8, at end insert—
	"( ) after that paragraph insert—"(aa) the Council is satisfied that a recognised body has been carrying on business in breach of any condition subject to which the body's recognition under section 32 of this Act has effect; or","
	Schedule 17, page 282, line 19, at end insert "(in both places)"
	Schedule 17, page 283, line 12, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
	"(a) for sub-paragraph (1) substitute—"(1) Where the Investigating Committee are satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of investigating any such allegation as is mentioned in paragraph 3(1)(a)(ii), (aa) or (ab), the Committee may give an information notice to a relevant person.(1A) An information notice is a notice requiring the production or delivery to any person appointed by the Committee, at a time and a place to be fixed by the Committee, of all documents in the possession or under the control of the relevant person in connection with the matters to which the allegation relates (whether or not they relate also to other matters).(1B) In this section "relevant person" means—(a) in the case of an allegation against a recognised body, the recognised body or any of its managers or employees, and(b) in the case of an allegation against a manager or employee of a recognised body, the manager or employee, the recognised body or any other manager or employee of the recognised body.", and(b) in sub-paragraph (2)—(i) for "and 12" substitute "to 12A",(ii) for "sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph" (except where it appears in paragraph (d)) substitute "sub-paragraphs (1) and (1A) of this paragraph", (iii) in paragraph (b) after "body" insert ", manager or employee", and(iv) in paragraph (d) for "sub-paragraph (1)" substitute "sub-paragraph (1A)"."
	Schedule 17, page 283, line 23, at end insert—
	"( ) Omit paragraph 15 (application of rules relating to accounts etc)."
	Schedule 17, page 283, line 36, at end insert—
	" The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is amended in accordance with this Part.
	(1) Section 53 (the Council for Licensed Conveyancers) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsections (1) to (3) substitute—
	"(1) The Council for Licensed Conveyancers has the powers necessary to enable it to become designated as an approved regulator in relation to one or more of the reserved legal activities within subsection (1A).
	(1A) The reserved legal activities to which this subsection applies are—
	(a) the exercise of a right of audience;(b) the conduct of litigation;(c) probate activities.
	(2) If the Council becomes an approved regulator in relation to one or more of those activities, it may, in that capacity, authorise a person to carry on a relevant activity only if the person is a licensed conveyancer.
	(3) Where the Council authorises a licensed conveyancer to carry on a relevant activity, it is to do so by issuing a licence to the licensed conveyancer."
	(3) Omit subsection (5).
	(4) For subsection (6) substitute—
	"(6) Where the Council exercises any of its powers in connection with—
	(a) an application for designation as an approved regulator in relation to a reserved legal activity within subsection (1A), or(b) the authorising of a person to carry on a relevant activity,it is to do so subject to any requirements to which it is subject in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Services Act 2007."
	(5) In subsection (8), for "Secretary of State" substitute "Lord Chancellor".
	(6) In subsection (9)—
	(a) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Lord Chancellor", and(b) omit paragraph (e).
	(7) After that subsection insert—
	"(10) For the purposes of this section—
	(a) "right of audience", "conduct of litigation", "probate activities" and "reserved legal activity" have the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007;(b) references to designation as an approved regulator are to designation as an approved regulator—(i) by Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Legal Services Act 2007, by virtue of an order under paragraph 1 of Schedule 22 to that Act, or(ii) under Part 2 of Schedule 4 to that Act;(c) "relevant activity" means an activity which is a reserved legal activity—(i) which is within subsection (1A), and(ii) in relation to which the Council is designated as an approved regulator by Part 1 of Schedule 4 to that Act (by virtue of an order under paragraph 1 of Schedule 22 to that Act) or under Part 2 of that Schedule.""
	Schedule 17, page 283, line 37, leave out "to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990"
	Schedule 17, page 283, line 38, at end insert—
	"( ) In paragraph 1 (definitions)—
	(a) in the definition of "advocacy licence" for "and constituting" to the end substitute "by which the Council authorises the licensed conveyancer concerned to exercise a right of audience;",(b) in the definition of "litigation licence" for "and constituting" to the end substitute "by which the Council authorises the licensed conveyancer concerned to carry on activities which constitute the conduct of litigation;",(c) in the definition of "probate licence" for "and constituting" to the end substitute "by which the Council authorises the licensed conveyancer concerned to carry on activities which constitute probate activities;"(d) at the end insert—
	""reserved legal activity" has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of and Schedule 2 to that Act)."
	( ) In paragraph 2 (qualification regulations and rules of conduct), in sub-paragraph (1)—
	(a) for "rules of conduct" substitute "conduct rules", and(b) for "granting of the rights or exemption" substitute "carrying on of the reserved legal activities".
	( ) In paragraph 4 (issue of licences), in sub-paragraph (1)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) for "rules of conduct" substitute "conduct rules", and(b) in paragraph (c) for "provide the advocacy, litigation or probate services" substitute "carry on the reserved legal activities".
	( ) In paragraph 5 (conditional licences)—
	(a) for sub-paragraph (1)(d) substitute—"(d) after the Investigating Committee have made any order in his case under section 24A(1) of the Act of 1985 or the Discipline and Appeals Committee have made any order in his case under section 26(1) of that Act.",(b) in sub-paragraph (6)—(i) in paragraph (a) for "service that may be provided" substitute "activities that may be carried on", and(ii) in paragraph (b) for "provides the additional services" substitute "carries on the additional activities",(c) after sub-paragraph (7) insert—"(8) Where a person applies for an advocacy, litigation or probate licence at a time when this paragraph has effect in relation to that person by reason of the circumstances mentioned in section 16(1)(ea) of the Act of 1985, section 16A(2) of that Act has effect as it has effect in relation to an application for a licence under Part 2 of that Act."
	( ) Omit paragraph 7 (code of conduct).
	( ) In paragraph 9 (removal of disqualification from holding a licence) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
	"(3) In relation to proceedings on an application under sub-paragraph (1), the Discipline and Appeals Committee may make such order as they consider fit as to the payment of costs by—
	(a) the Council;(b) the applicant."
	( ) In paragraph 10 (revocation on grounds of error or fraud), after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
	"(5) In relation to proceedings for the revocation of a licence under sub-paragraph (1), the Discipline and Appeals Committee may make such order as they consider fit as to the payment of costs by—
	(a) the Council;(b) the licensed conveyancer to whose licence the proceedings relate.
	(6) In relation to proceedings on an application under sub-paragraph (2), the Discipline and Appeals Committee may make such order as they consider fit as to the payment of costs by—
	(a) the Council;(b) the applicant."
	( ) Omit paragraph 11."
	Schedule 17, page 283, line 38, at end insert—
	"( ) In paragraph 12 (delegation of powers etc)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1) for "Subject" to "enactment, the" substitute "The",(b) in that sub-paragraph, for paragraph (b) substitute—"(b) by a sub-committee of such a committee; or(c) by an individual (whether or not a member of the Council's staff).",(c) after that sub-paragraph insert—"(1A) Where by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) any function may be discharged by a committee, the committee may arrange for the discharge of that function by—(a) a sub-committee of that committee; or(b) an individual, whether or not a member of the Council's staff.(1B) Sub-paragraph (1A) is subject to any contrary direction given by the Council.(1C) Arrangements made under sub-paragraph (1) or (1A) in respect of a function may provide that the function is to be exercised in accordance with the arrangements only (and not by the delegating body).(1D) For this purpose "the delegating body" means—(a) in the case of arrangements under sub-paragraph (1), the Council, and(b) in the case of arrangements under sub-paragraph (1A), the committee.",(d) for sub-paragraph (3) substitute—"(3) Any power conferred by sub-paragraph (1), (1A) or (2) may be exercised so as to impose restrictions or conditions on the body or individual by whom the function is to be discharged.",(e) for sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) substitute—"(6) A committee or sub-committee established under this paragraph may include or consist of individuals other than—(a) members of the Council;(b) licensed conveyancers.(7) A sub-committee of a committee established under this paragraph may also include or consist of individuals other than members of the committee.(7A) The Council may make arrangements for the appointment and removal of members of any committee to be made other than by the Council.(7B) A committee or sub-committee may regulate its own procedure, including quorum.", and(f) after sub-paragraph (9) insert—"(10) This paragraph is subject to any provision to the contrary made by or under any enactment."
	( ) Omit paragraph 13 (Council's intervention powers)."
	Schedule 17, page 283, line 39, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3)
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 175 [Commissioners for oaths]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 597 and 598:
	Clause 175, page 90, line 33, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 175, page 90, line 36, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 176 [Trade mark attorneys]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 599 to 601:
	Clause 176, page 91, line 25, leave out "attorney" and insert "agency"
	Clause 176, page 92, line 30, leave out from "body," to end of line 37 and insert "has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 197);"
	Clause 176, page 92, line 45, leave out "attorney" and insert "agency"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 177 [Patent attorneys]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 602 and 603:
	Clause 177, page 93, line 25, after "is" insert "to continue"
	Clause 177, page 94, line 47, leave out from "body," to end of line 5 on page 95 and insert "has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 197);"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 18 [Immigration advice and immigration services]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 604 to 611:
	Schedule 18, page 284, line 14, at end insert—
	"Continuity of existing rights
	1A Each of the following bodies is a qualifying regulator for the purposes of Part 5 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—
	(a) the Law Society;(b) the Institute of Legal Executives;(c) the General Council of the Bar."
	Schedule 18, page 284, line 36, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Schedule 18, page 285, line 27, leave out "individuals" and insert "persons"
	Schedule 18, page 285, line 41, at end insert—
	"( ) In subsection (2)(c) the reference to persons who are also authorised by the applicant to carry on activities which are reserved legal activities includes, in relation to any application by the Law Society, registered foreign lawyers (within the meaning of section 89 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)."
	Schedule 18, page 286, line 20, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Schedule 18, page 286, line 31, at end insert—
	"( ) If a body in the list in paragraph 1A ceases to be a qualifying regulator by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), the Lord Chancellor must, by order, remove it from that list."
	Schedule 18, page 290, line 8, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Schedule 18, page 290, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
	"(1) During the transitional period, each of the following is deemed to be authorised by the Law Society to provide immigration advice and immigration services—
	(a) every qualified solicitor;(b) every registered foreign lawyer (within the meaning of section 89 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41));(c) every legal partnership (within the meaning of paragraph 7(4) of Schedule 5);(d) every body recognised under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (c. 61)."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 182 [Legal professional privilege]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 612:
	Clause 182, page 97, line 42, leave out paragraph (i) and insert—
	"( ) a European lawyer (within the meaning of the European Communities (Services of Lawyers) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1910))."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 613:
	After Clause 182, insert the following new Clause—
	"Rights of audience etc of employees of housing management bodies
	After section 60 of the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28) insert—
	"60A Rights of audience etc of employees of housing management bodies
	(1) An employee of a housing management body who is authorised by that body for the purposes of this section has—
	(a) a right of audience in relation to any proceedings to which this section applies, and(b) a right to conduct litigation in relation to any such proceedings.
	(2) This section applies to relevant housing proceedings in a county court before a district judge which are brought—
	(a) in the name of a local housing authority, and(b) by the housing management body in the exercise of functions of that local housing authority delegated to that body under a housing management agreement.
	(3) "Relevant housing proceedings" are—
	(a) proceedings under section 82A of the Housing Act 1985 (demotion because of anti-social behaviour);(b) proceedings for possession of a dwelling-house subject to a secure tenancy, where possession is sought on ground 2 in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act (anti-social behaviour);(c) proceedings for possession of a dwelling-house subject to a demoted tenancy;(d) proceedings for a suspension order under section 121A of the Housing Act 1985 (suspension of right to buy);(e) proceedings under section 153A, 153B or 153D of the Housing Act 1996 (injunctions against anti-social behaviour);(f) proceedings for the attachment of a power of arrest to an injunction by virtue of section 91(2) of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 or section 27(2) of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (proceedings under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972: power of arrest attached to injunction); (g) at a hearing at which a decision is made in relation to proceedings within paragraphs (a) to (f), proceedings for permission to appeal against that decision;(h) such other proceedings as the Lord Chancellor may prescribe by order.
	(4) An authorisation for the purposes of this section must be in writing.
	(5) The power to make an order under subsection (3)(h) is exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
	(6) In subsection (3)(e) the reference to section 153A of the Housing Act 1996 is a reference to that section—
	(a) as inserted by section 13 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, or(b) as substituted by section 26 of the Police and Justice Act 2006.
	(7) In this section—
	"dwelling-house" has the same meaning as in Part 4 of the Housing Act 1985;
	"housing management agreement" means an agreement under section 27 of the Housing Act 1985 (including an agreement to which section 27B(2) or (3) of that Act applies);
	"housing management body" means a person who exercises management functions of a local housing authority by virtue of a housing management agreement;
	"local housing authority" has the same meaning as in section 27 of the Housing Act 1985;
	"right of audience" means the right to appear before and address a court, including the right to call and examine witnesses;
	"right to conduct litigation" means the right—
	(a) to issue proceedings before any court in England and Wales,(b) to commence, prosecute and defend such proceedings, and(c) to perform any ancillary functions in relation to such proceedings (such as entering appearances to actions);
	"secure tenancy" has the same meaning as in Part 4 of the Housing Act 1985.""

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the amendment enables employees of certain housing management organisations to exercise rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience in relation to specified housing-related proceedings, in particular where anti-social behaviour is an issue. Many of the bodies' employees are former local authority housing officers who on transferring to the new housing management bodies lost the ability to exercise their rights of appeal as local authority employees. I know from our discussions with stakeholders that some concerns about the supervision of those employees and to whom they will be accountable if something goes wrong when they are exercising those rights have been raised. There are safeguards that will address those concerns. The right of audience and rights to conduct litigation will be exercisable only by employees of housing management bodies that have an agreement with a local housing authority under Section 27 of the Housing Act 1985. Those agreements regulate the activities of the housing management bodies and state what they can and cannot do on behalf of the local authority and must be approved by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
	In approving any Section 27 agreement, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will clearly need to be satisfied that there is adequate supervision in respect of any exercise of those rights by the staff of the housing body concerned. As a result of those safeguards, I beg to move.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, this amendment seeks to grant employees of organisations that manage local authority housing stock rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation in respect of anti-social behaviour proceedings in the county court. There is a concern that those rights are to be granted without such housing officers being subject to any regulation or training requirements. They will be the only group authorised to deal with complex litigation that is not required to comply with the regulatory scheme. Where a solicitor behaves in breach of his or her obligation to the court he or she can be disciplined or even struck off. There will be no mechanism for stripping housing officers of those rights save for persuading their employer to withdraw the written authorisation.
	We would support in principle housing officers having rights of audience in that area, provided that they are subject to a regulatory regime with sufficient teeth to ensure that proper standards of administration are maintained. It is essential that those who conduct litigation and have rights of audience are under an obligation, for example, not to mislead the court, and that they understand their other duties to the court, such as the full disclosure of relevant documents. That is particularly important because, in many of the proceedings that housing officers will be conducting, applications will be included without notice where the opponent is not present.
	The proceedings for which housing officers will have these rights include proceedings seeking injunctions, where a power of arrest can be attached to the injunction. In addition, possession orders could be made evicting tenants on a without-notice basis in serious cases. We believe that the public have a right to expect those representing landlords in such cases to be properly qualified and regulated.
	Local authority employees may appear, though they cannot conduct litigation, in possession and other minor cases. The right to appear before the court is exercised by local authority officers under the supervision of local authority legal departments. We support in principle housing officers employed by management organisations being given the right to appear in similar routine cases, provided that the issues related to legal supervision can be resolved.
	This government amendment appeared without warning after Committee was concluded. There has been no consultation with either the Law Society or the Bar Council on the subject. I am unaware whether or not there has been any consultation with the judiciary. Many of the matters covered by the amendment are serious cases where eviction is a possibility and where the facts may be hotly disputed. It is therefore vital that the advocates should be professionals, with the duties to the court that that implies.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I strongly agree with my noble friend. I was very surprised to find this new clause appearing at such a late stage in our consideration of the Bill without any prior warning. It is fundamentally flawed for the Government to rewrite in this way the rules concerning rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation. As my noble friend has pointed out, the restrictions on those rights serve an important public purpose; namely, that those who carry out the functions are properly trained and are subject to appropriate professional duties. It may well be that there has been some good reason for this new clause appearing at this very late stage without proper consultation. If there is, we look forward to hearing it.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, my noble friend has asked the one question I was going to ask: why? What is the justification, and what is wrong with the present system?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there has been a change. The issue raised with the amendment is that we now have a new system where we have people and arm's-length organisations who need to be able to have the rights we have talked about. I accept that concerns have been raised, not least by the Law Society, which, my briefing says, has raised the issue, which rather suggests that there has been some kind of dialogue. I know that the Law Society is looking, quite reasonably, to have certainty about the situation, and I will seek to provide that in my response to the questions noble Lords have asked.
	The rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation will only be exercisable by employers of housing management bodies that have a formal management agreement with the local housing authority. That is covered, as I indicated, in Section 27 of the Housing Act 1985. The local authority will set the terms of the management agreement, thereby ensuring that there is sufficient accountability of the new housing management body. That agreement sets the respective roles, responsibilities and functions of the local authority and the housing management bodies, and should normally provide that parent local authorities continue to be legally liable for anything that housing management bodies do, or do not do, under the terms of the agreement.
	As I indicated earlier, those agreements must be approved by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Each and every agreement is thoroughly scrutinised by officials to ensure that it is robust. The employers will need written authority from the housing management body before exercising their rights. As with local authority housing officers, employees of housing management bodies will handle only routine cases. More complex cases will require the involvement of solicitors or the local authorities' legal officers. The Department for Communities and Local Government is looking at making Section 27 agreements guidance more up to date, with particular reference—I think this allays the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral—to the need for all housing management employees to be supervised by a qualified lawyer.
	The safeguards are in place. I understand that our discussions with the Law Society have been constructive. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their objection to my amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 184 [Solicitors to public departments and the City of London]:

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 614:
	Clause 184, page 99, line 4, leave out subsection (2)

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, this amendment, which was discussed at an earlier stage, is intended to remove the exemption from the need to hold a practising certificate which applies to solicitors in government service. At present, all solicitors providing legal services in private practice are required to hold a practising certificate, and thus to contribute towards the costs of regulation. Solicitors in commerce and industry and in local government are also required to hold a practising certificate if they undertake reserved activities or if they are held out as solicitors. Government solicitors are wholly exempt from the need to hold such a certificate. Incidentally, there is no similar exemption for government solicitors in Scotland.
	The Government have recognised the indefensibility of the present exemption in other contexts. When the Crown Prosecution Service was created in the 1980s, prosecuting solicitors who had formerly worked in local government and were required to hold practising certificates transferred to a central government department. The Government recognised that it would be unjustified for that change of employer to remove the need for them to hold a practising certificate, so the Prosecution of Offences Act specifically provided for solicitors employed in the CPS to hold a practising certificate. Similarly, when the Bar Council's practising certificate fees became enforceable as a result of the Access to Justice Act 1999, there was no provision excluding government barristers from the need to hold a practising certificate. The result is to create a quite discriminatory situation. Government solicitors are exempt from the need to hold a practising certificate while government barristers must pay.
	The position might be understandable if government solicitors were regarded in some way as second-class lawyers not requiring the same qualifications and not subject to the same regulatory requirements as their colleagues in private practice; but this, of course, is not the case. Government solicitors are treated as being equally professional and equally subject to professional discipline.
	Your Lordships may recall that, in Committee, discussion took place on this amendment and the Minister suggested that because government solicitors did not hold client money, they did not pose any regulatory risk. That argument is wholly misconceived. Regulation of the solicitors' profession is not simply about the arrangements for holding clients' money or for dealing with lay clients. It also encompasses establishing qualification requirements to become a solicitor, establishing the continuing professional development requirements, establishing the rules of conduct and monitoring and enforcing compliance with the rules of conduct. All those issues are as applicable to government solicitors as they are to those in private practice. Government solicitors frequently have to advise on the lawfulness of particular action where the wishes of their Minister may not be lawfully achieved. It is essential that those advising in such circumstances are subject to professional duties, including duties to the court, to help ensure that they give independent legal advice rather than simply the advice that the Minister wishes to hear.
	We recognise that it is inappropriate for practising certificate fees to be the same for all sectors when there are significant differences in the extent to which different sectors require the use of regulatory resources. In the case of government lawyers and lawyers in commerce, industry and local government, the cost of practising certificate fees should be less than for solicitors in private practice because they do not hold client money. The apparatus to guard against mishandling of client money is not relevant to their sector. For those reasons, the fees for solicitors employed in government and in commerce and industry should be substantially less than those in private practice; but that does not mean that they should be exempt.
	The present legislation does not allow the Law Society to charge differential fees in that way. However, amendments to the Solicitors Act, which are already incorporated in the Bill, will give that power to the Law Society in the future. Accordingly, a requirement to hold a practising certificate will not lead to an unfair burden being put on government lawyers or on their departments, which will in practice meet the cost of their practising certificates. It will simply ensure that government solicitors are no longer unfairly exempted from the requirement to contribute an appropriate amount towards the cost of regulating solicitors. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, noble Lords will already be aware of my strong support for the amendment. This was something that the Joint Committee found difficult to understand, particularly the differentiation between solicitors and barristers and with those practising in Scotland. The Minister has always promised to come forward with a detailed explanation of exactly why the situation should be permitted to continue. As far as I can see, it is an anomaly that began somewhere in the 19th century, and no one can quite understand how it ever arose or why the exemption was originally provided for. Certainly, we have never heard any explanation of why it should continue. We await the response of the noble Baroness.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I was not going to respond to this amendment, but I know something about government lawyers because I have responsibility for them; and I thought that, with my noble friend's agreement, I ought to respond.
	Having listened to both the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Hunt, I noted one absolute omission from anything that they said. They have not at any stage pointed out what the benefit to the public would be or what the need for regulation of government lawyers is that is not presently catered for. There are anomalies, and I can go through them if the House wants, but at the end of the day there is a real, practical issue here. The amendment seeks a substantial sum of money to be paid by taxpayers to the Law Society without demonstrating what the public benefit would be. That is a difficult thing to justify when that would be the effect of the amendment.
	The Government are the principal consumers in the case of those offices listed under Clause 184, not the public at large. To that end, the existing system adequately provides regulation for government solicitors. I know from my own responsibilities that there is a strong and proportionate system of regulation applying to government solicitors which includes comprehensive training and development programmes, ensuring that high standards are maintained across the Government Legal Service. The head of the Government Legal Service is the Treasury Solicitor, who is responsible for what takes place.
	Clause 184(5) also ensures that any government solicitor who exercises a right of audience or conducts litigation is under a duty to the court to act with independence in the interests of justice. I come back to the point: I have not heard a single shred of evidence to suggest that there is a problem with how government solicitors carry out their duties under the existing regime, or information which supports the case for the public purse to meet the cost of different regulatory arrangements to those already provided.
	I am sorry to disappoint noble Lords, but I ultimately find it hard to accept that the taxpayer should make this additional sum of money available for no benefit to the public. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his unexpected intervention this evening. I will respond in two ways. First, if that principle should apply to government lawyers, should it not apply to at least all lawyers in the Government's service? It does not, after all, apply to barristers—they must pay their practising fee—or barristers or solicitors in Scotland. If the noble and learned Lord is going to go on to the front foot, and not simply say that this is now the situation because it always has been but adduce some positive reasons for exempting government solicitors in England and Wales, those reasons should surely apply equally to other lawyers in the Government's service.
	Secondly, there is one important reason why government lawyers should be regulated: they give advice to Ministers. As I said in my opening, government lawyers must frequently give advice to Ministers on the lawfulness of particular actions in circumstances where the wishes of their Minister may not lawfully be achieved. I make no apology for repeating myself; but it is essential that those advising in those circumstances are not only subject to professional duties but are seen to be so. That is why government lawyers ought to be drawn into the net.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, does the noble Lord know what the systems within government are if a lawyer is concerned that his advice is not being followed? Does he know what happens in those circumstances? Does he know of any example where anyone has thought that they should turn to the Law Society? I know of no such case.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I have some knowledge of the procedures, but not sufficient to compete in every detail with the noble and learned Lord. I know of no circumstances in which a government lawyer has appealed to the Law Society for any support where there has been a conflict between themselves and the Minister.
	I do know, however, that the Government have insisted, throughout the Bill, not only on realities but on perceptions. The Government have always said that even if there is no danger, in respect of some danger that we have said does not exist, we have to be crystal clear in the Bill because there may be a perception of danger. Even if the noble and learned Lord is right that the system in practice at the moment is watertight, nevertheless, I suggest, at least on behalf of the Law Society, that there is a perception that that is not so. There is a perception that government lawyers ought to be subject to similar regimes to other lawyers. In these circumstances and despite what I regard as the well intentioned and calmly presented arguments of the Government, I nevertheless wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 614) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 65.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 185 [Payments in respect of pro bono representation]:
	[Amendments Nos. 615 and 616 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, there is an error in the Marshalled List, as Amendment No. 617 should come next.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 617:
	Clause 185, page 100, line 15, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 616A:
	Clause 185, page 100, line 15, at end insert—
	"( ) Where an award of costs is made to a party under this section, the prescribed charity shall have regard to the wishes of the legal representative of that party with respect to the distribution of the award."

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, your Lordships may recall that we debated this matter in Committee. It concerns two issues; first, the Government have established a system—both imaginatively and correctly, in my view—whereby cost awards may be made, in future, to the successful litigant who has pro bono representation. The second issue is: what happens to the money that flows from the cost awards? The Government have established a system under the Bill whereby it will be managed by a prescribed charity. The terms of reference of that charity, and the manner in which it is to be established, have yet to be decided—but it will, of course, be a creature of charities legislation.
	In Committee, our concern was for those individuals who might have views about how the cost award ought to be distributed which conflicted with the charitable scope of the prescribed charity. At the end of the debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, kindly suggested that I might take the time to look into the intended terms of reference of that charity, to satisfy myself that its objectives conformed with those of which, during the debate, I had said I approved. I have done so, and I am entirely satisfied about them.
	However, there might be circumstances in which a pro bono representative has strong views about the destination of the moneys, even within the terms laid down in the charitable objectives of the prescribed charity. Amendment No. 616A is intended to require the prescribed charity to have regard to the wishes of the legal representative of the party with respect to the distribution of the award made to that party.
	I have been much influenced by the discussions that I have had with various lawyers, in particular Mr Robin Knowles, who have spent a great deal of time, entirely at the service of the general public, to ensure that the idea behind the clause gets off the ground. I applaud the work that he has done. Indeed, I would like to say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, how much I admire everything that he has done for the pro bono movement. Since the early seeds were sown, it has gone from strength to strength. The fact that he is prepared to put his shoulder so firmly behind it is one of the main reasons for its success.
	So in tabling the amendment, I do not want the noble and learned Lord to think that I am in any way trying to undermine his objectives. I am simply trying to ensure that those who do the pro bono work can, if they wish, have some say in the ultimate destination of the money. I beg to move.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord for three things: first, for having taken the trouble and time—he is very heavily committed on this Bill so he will have had a great deal else to do—to consider the issue and to discuss it with those whom he has mentioned. I entirely share his view on the work that they have done and I, too, pay tribute to Mr Robin Knowles and others. Secondly, I thank him, as a result, for having withdrawn his previous amendment and tabled one focused on the point that he identified. Thirdly, I thank him for the very generous remarks he made at the end of his speech moving the amendment. I very much appreciate what he said.
	I declare my interests, as I did responding to the amendments in Committee, both as president—it carries no executive responsibility—of the Bar Pro Bono Unit and as chairman of the Attorney-General's National Pro Bono Co-Ordinating Committee. I repeat those declarations.
	I also thank my noble friend for allowing me the opportunity to propose what I regard as this important, if small, amendment to the Bill. I am grateful for the overall support that it has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. As he knows and has explained, the structure of the single charity envisaged under the clause was the subject of study by a working party set up under the auspices of the co-ordinating committee to which I referred. The membership of that working party was drawn from across the profession and the working sector. The report of the working party was fully endorsed by the full co-ordinating committee. I know that the noble Lord has seen that report.
	The report contemplates that among the factors to which the single prescribed charity would have regard—probably through principles rather than as a constitutional fetter—when making decisions about distribution of money received, would be any expression of preference by the legal representatives who have acted pro bono. The report emphasises that such expression of preference could not be determinative, otherwise much of the advantage of strategic perspective that the use of a single prescribed charity offers would be lost. Those who wish to express a preference would be free to do so. I can see that proper regard to such expressions of preference would be helpful in ensuring confidence in the use of the prescribed charity. But, again, as the working party report emphasises, there must be a balance between having regard to preferences expressed and ensuring fair and strategic disbursement.
	It is intended that the single charity, which is referred to and which will be prescribed under Clause 185, will have the feature that I have just described. I hope that the noble Lord will take the view that that is sufficient to meet his concerns, without his amendment being moved. He will not be surprised to hear that I would have some difficulties with the amendment as it stands. For example, it identifies only one factor and does not mention that the charity can have regard to the others. That always creates a difficulty in the statute—there are others, but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has taken my point.
	Without, I hope, adding any sour note to what has been a constructive discussion, I do not share the view expressed by some to the noble Lord, that the enthusiasm of those who do pro bono work will be dampened by thinking that money might not go to their favourite or prescribed charity. I have confidence in them, have had the privilege of seeing them at work and know that they do that work because they want to help those people who receive legal advice and assistance. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
	I note that, since I spoke to the associated amendment in Committee, the Department for Constitutional Affairs has issued a consultation paper on the clause which invites comments on all aspects of the clause's implementation. I hope that that will result in constructive suggestions from many quarters.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. I would have preferred to have the amendment incorporated in the Bill. However, I have had his undertaking that its terms will be taken into account by those responsible for the management of the prescribed charity, when funds come in which have been derived from particular cases. I am sure that that consideration will be given proper attention by the prescribed charity and am, therefore, content to withdraw my amendment and leave matters as they stand in the Bill.
	The noble and learned Lord is right in saying that there is concern in sectors of the solicitors' profession, in particular among some city firms, about the extent of the prescribed charity's power in relation to the ultimate destination of funds. I draw consolation from what the noble and learned Lord has said and am sure that if those concerns are properly taken into account, the existence of the prescribed charity will not prove to be a disincentive to the effort they make in pro bono cases. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 618 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Goldsmith: moved Amendment No. 619:
	Clause 185, page 100, line 29, leave out subsection (11) and insert—
	"( ) The court may not make an order under subsection (3) in respect of representation if (or to the extent that) it is provided before this section comes into force."

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the amendment will allow the court to consider making a pro bono costs order in proceedings commenced before the clause comes into force but in relation to costs incurred after the clause comes into force. If passed, the amendment will give the court the discretion to make a costs order in a successful pro bono case, even though the case had started before the clause came into force. That might mean that in long-running cases—perhaps those on their way to the Court of Appeal or even to the Judicial Committee of this House, or those that have reached only their early stages at the commencement of this legislation—the court could still make an order for pro bono costs if it considered it appropriate. That will have the benefit of expanding the proceedings in which this new power can be used. I underline that the court could not make an order in relation to costs incurred, or to work carried out, before the clause comes into force. That would be retrospective, and is not what the Government seek to do. I add that this will mean that ongoing cases are in the same position as those that have started after the clause comes into effect, so far as work done after the commencement of the legislation is concerned. It will, I hope, have the benefit of producing additional funds for the prescribed charity, which in turn may use those funds to assist the further provision of free advice. For those reasons, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 20 [Amendments in relation to the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007]:

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 620:
	Schedule 20, page 295, line 21, at end insert—
	"(17A) In Schedule 1 paragraph 3(ba) after "of" insert "the Council""

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, the amendment would ensure that non-solicitors can be appointed members of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland. The governing body of the Law Society of Scotland is its council, which is currently composed exclusively of solicitors, although it has four non-solicitor observers. I have been in touch, and had correspondence, with Michael Clancy, the director of the Law Society of Scotland, who explains that he and his colleagues would very much like this provision to be made. I am also now aware that the Scottish Consumer Council is backing the move by the Law Society of Scotland to appoint non-solicitors to its governing council for the first time in history. I warmly applaud this move, and I very much hope that the Government will support it.
	Schedule 20 is interesting because it deals with a whole range of issues relating to devolved and non-devolved matters. I do not know whether the Minister will explain whether we require a legislative consent Motion, although it would undoubtedly be difficult to require one, given the Scottish Executive's present situation. On balance, it is probably not necessary, given the other matters that are repealed in this part. As the Minister is showing an interest in this issue, I shall explain that, as I understand it, many of the repeals in Schedule 23 deal with a range of devolved issues surrounding the discharge of functions of the council. The repeals involve Section 3A, on the discharge of the functions of the Council of the Law Society; Section 20, on the council's duty to supply a list of solicitors holding practising certificates; Section 24C, on the discretion of the council in special cases; Section 34(4), on the rules of professional practice conduct and discipline; and Sections 38, 39, 42A and 42B, which all relate to council powers where dishonesty is alleged. The list of sections is considerable, and I need mention no more, except to say that, in the light of that, it is not necessary for a legislative consent Motion to be passed by the Scottish Parliament. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, it is, at first blush, rather surprising that it falls to this Parliament to consider the composition of the council of the Law Society of Scotland. In so far as it has the backing of Mr Michael Clancy, the profession itself and the consumer representatives in Scotland, it merits our acceptance in principle. I hope it can be achieved without the consents that the noble Lord mentioned.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, alluded to, the regulation of the legal profession in Scotland is a devolved matter and therefore more appropriately dealt with by the Scottish Parliament. I recognise that this amendment is important. It attempts to promote greater non-solicitor involvement in the functions of the Law Society of Scotland. It is, of course, consistent with the agenda that seeks to put consumers at the heart of regulatory arrangements in the legal profession. As the noble Lord will know—and the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, will certainly know—the Scottish Parliament legislated on matters concerning the Scottish legal profession last year. The Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 came into force earlier this year.
	While it is technically possible for us to amend the relevant legislation to allow non-solicitors to sit on the council of the Law Society of Scotland, noble Lords will be familiar with the convention, set out in the Statement by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, to this House in 1998:
	"Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament".—[Official Report, 21/7/98; col. 791.]
	The change sought by the Law Society of Scotland was not put forward when the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act was before the Scottish Parliament. It is unlikely—bearing in mind where we are with the Scottish elections—to be possible to obtain a legislative consent Motion in that Parliament at this time, following the very recent elections. I must ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. We will seek to get the Law Society to raise this with the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament first, and then return to it if need be. At this stage there is nothing I can do.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I listed a series of the present enactments which surely fall within the same bracket. Is the Minister confident that the repeals that I set out do not require a legislative consent Motion? The amendment that I am moving seems very much on a par with what is already provided for within this schedule.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we took advice from the Scotland Office lawyers and lawyers within the Scottish Executive. The advice I was given was very clear and direct: I need to pursue the process I have set out. I need to get the required Motion in order to make that possible.
	This is a good and important amendment; I have no objection to it. I am simply rather trapped in the process at present. That does not mean that I have given up on it. We will have to see if there is anything that we can do, but it will not be by way of amending other than getting a Sewel Motion in the Scottish Parliament. We wait to see what happens. This legislation has further to go; it has another House to go through. There may be time within that. I merely ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment at this stage because I am rather tied.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I understand that the Minister will now seek a way within the timescale of this legislation to ensure that a legislative consent Motion is required. I would have thought that it should meet with the approval of the Parliament in the way that the noble Lord has already indicated. It seems a sensible move forward for the Minister to initiate the processes necessary to see if that is possible in good time before the Bill completes its parliamentary passage.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I will certainly seek to discuss this. I cannot say that I can initiate because initiation comes from within the Scottish Parliament. The noble Lord will understand that my hands are tied. This is absolutely within the jurisdiction of a devolved matter. I must wait to see the Ministers appointed. I have no doubt that the Law Society of Scotland will make representations. We shall see where the Parliament and the Executive wish to go with it. We will not stand in its way, but I do not want to pretend that I am hopeful that we will be able to do it during the passage of the Bill. If we can, we will, but I cannot pretend that I am certain of that.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I wish to make it absolutely clear that I was not looking for certainty. I was merely looking for commitment. In the light of the Minister's commitment in the terms she has just expressed, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 621:
	Before Clause 188, insert the following new Clause—
	"Protected functions not transferable under Ministers of the Crown Act 1975
	(1) The Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (c. 26) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 1 (Power by ordering Council to transfer functions of Ministers), at the end of subsection (6) insert—
	"or the Legal Services Act 2007""

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in Committee the Government accepted an amendment to the effect that ministerial functions under the Bill should rest with the Lord Chancellor rather than the Secretary of State. The thinking behind the amendment was that it was essential, in order to reinforce the perceived independence of the regulation of the legal profession, that any ministerial functions rested with the Minister responsible for the judiciary and the court system. During the debate on that amendment, my noble friend Lord Hunt made it clear that if the amendment was successful, it would be important to bring forward a further amendment to entrench the position.
	Under the proposed amendment, therefore, it would no longer be possible for the ministerial functions to be transferred from the Lord Chancellor to another Minister simply through a transfer of functions order. Instead, primary legislation would be needed. An equivalent provision was included in the Constitutional Reform Act to ensure that ministerial responsibilities in relation to the judiciary were carried out by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor rather than by another Minister. That principle is equally important in respect of the functions in the Legal Services Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I agree.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, the amendment seeks to entrench in the Bill the functions of the Lord Chancellor so that those functions could be transferred only by primary legislation. The amendment is deficient in that it does not provide for all of the Lord Chancellor's functions in the regulation of the legal professions to be entrenched. The Government have decided that all these functions should be entrenched, and if the noble Lord will bear with us, a government amendment follows this group which I think will satisfy him completely.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in those circumstances, how could I possibly not withdraw my amendment? I thank the Minister very much. I am delighted to receive that excellent news. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 189 [Local weights and measures authorities]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 622 and 623:
	Clause 189, page 102, line 26, at end insert—
	"(1A) A local weights and measures authority may institute proceedings for an offence under section (Offence to carry on reserved legal activity through person not entitled) if the activity which it is alleged that E was not entitled to carry on constitutes reserved instrument activities; and "E" has the same meaning as in that section."
	Clause 189, page 102, line 29, after "(1)" insert "or (1A)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 623A:
	After Clause 189, insert the following new Clause—
	"Protected functions of the Lord Chancellor
	(1) Schedule 7 to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c. 4) (protected functions of the Lord Chancellor) is amended as follows.
	(2) After paragraph 3 insert—
	"3A Any function of the Lord Chancellor under the Legal Services Act 2007."
	(3) Part A of paragraph 4 is amended in accordance with subsections (4) to (7).
	(4) After the entry for the Juries Act 1974 (c. 23), insert—
	"Solicitors Act 1974
	Section 56".
	(5) After the entry for the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 (c. 17), insert—
	"Administration of Justice Act 1985
	Section 9(7)Section 69(2)Schedule 3".
	(6) In the entry for the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c.41)—
	(a) after "Section 1" insert—"Section 53Section 60", and(b) after "Section 72" insert—"Section 89Section 125(4)Schedule 19, paragraph 17".
	(7) After the entry for the Finance Act 1999 (c.16), insert—
	"Access to Justice Act 1999
	Section 45"."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, on the first day in Committee, Members of the Committee argued strongly in support of the need to preserve the independence of the legal professions. In particular, there were concerns that the responsibilities under the Bill should be exercised by the Lord Chancellor as opposed to a Secretary of State. The Committee had in mind the fact that the Lord Chancellor, by reason of his oath of office and the provisions of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, has a range of unique duties and responsibilities not shared by other Ministers. Among those are that he must have regard to,
	"the need for the public interest in regard to matters relating to the judiciary or otherwise to the administration of justice to be properly represented in decisions affecting those matters".
	The Lord Chancellor must also be qualified by experience in law or Parliament and has a specific duty to respect the rule of law.
	The Government of course recognise not only the need to ensure that the legal professions are properly independent of government, but also that they can be seen to be independent. In recognition of this I agreed that the functions should be exercised by the Lord Chancellor, and the Government have brought forward amendments to give effect to that. Members of the Committee pressed me further to exclude the functions from the permitted scope of orders under the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975, in much the same way as was done in respect of the Lord Chancellor's judiciary-related functions and functions relating to the Great Seal in the Constitutional Reform Act.
	Noble Lords will recall that at the time I resisted going that far. However, in looking carefully at the proposition, I am content to propose this government amendment which I hope achieves the outcome which noble Lords were seeking and does not have the deficiencies of the previous amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 194 [Orders, regulations and rules]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 624 and 625:
	Clause 194, page 106, line 8, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 194, page 106, line 23, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 196 [Parliamentary control of orders and regulations]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 626 and 627:
	Clause 196, page 107, line 23, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 196, page 108, line 16, at end insert—
	"( ) section 197(4A) (power to modify definition of "manager" in its application to foreign bodies);"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 628:
	Clause 196, page 108, line 22, at end insert—
	"( ) paragraph A2 of Schedule 22 (transitory power to modify functions of designated regulators etc)."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 636, 648, 651A, 654A and 654B. The amendments in this group share the common objective of ensuring that the transition to the new regulatory framework is not hindered by undue delay. As noble Lords will know, it will be some time before the board is fully established and the entire regime in place. That should not prevent us making progress in the mean time.
	Amendment No. 648 creates a provision which enables changes to be made to the statutory functions of designated regulators; that is, bodies which will become approved regulators when the provisions come into force. This will cover the period before the board comes into existence and is able to recommend orders under Clause 68 for this purpose. I am introducing this amendment in response to an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. That amendment was not moved due to lack of time, but as I indicated in letters to your Lordships on 22 March 2007, I was prepared to consider it. Having given this further thought, I am persuaded that the noble Lord's proposals in this regard are valid. I hope that these government amendments achieve the outcome that the noble Lord was seeking.
	As noble Lords will know, one of the key aims of the Government has been to ensure that any changes needed to enable approved regulators to operate efficiently and effectively under the new regulatory arrangements are not unduly delayed by inflexible arrangements. Against that backdrop, I can well conceive that statutory bodies will need to adapt certain aspects of their regulatory framework at some point before the board comes into being. This power will allow this, placing them as far as possible on an equal footing with non-statutory bodies such as the Bar Council during the transitional period.
	The proposed new clause is modelled in principle on Clause 68. It will enable the Lord Chancellor to make an order to modify the functions of designated regulators during a transitional period, provided that the change in question is for one of the stated purposes, which are effectively the same as those in Clause 68. The Lord Chancellor may act only in accordance with a request from a designated regulator. He must publish the proposed changes and consult the Lord Chief Justice and the Office of Fair Trading. He may also consult the Legal Services Consultative Panel and any other persons as appropriate, and must have regard to advice and representations. As with Clause 68, the final order will be subject to Parliament under the affirmative procedure.
	The purpose of the second set of amendments in this group is to ensure smooth transition by enabling the LSB to carry out its initial functions without waiting until the chief executive is in place. It is particularly important for the Office of Legal Complaints to be appointed at the earliest opportunity so that it can begin the work necessary for implementation, including the production of its scheme rules. Should the LSB have to wait until it has appointed its chief executive before it can proceed to appoint the OLC, it could delay the implementation up to nine months. This would be of real detriment. Similarly, it is important that the LSB is able to issue supervisory directions to the interim chief executive of the OLC at the earliest opportunity. The LSB chairing board should be able to oversee the work of the interim chief executive, be aware and kept informed of the activities taking place, and issue directions accordingly. I beg to move.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for responding to some of our concerns.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 197 [Interpretation]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 629:
	Clause 197, page 108, line 31, at end insert—
	""barrister" means an individual who—
	(a) has been called to the Bar by an Inn of Court, and(b) is not disbarred by order of an Inn of Court;"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 630 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 631:
	Clause 197, page 108, leave out lines 44 to 46 and insert—
	""court" includes—
	(a) a tribunal that is (to any extent) a listed tribunal for, or for any of, the purposes of Schedule 7 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (functions etc of Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council);(b) a court-martial;(c) a statutory inquiry within the meaning of section 16(1) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (c. 53);(d) an ecclesiastical court (including the Court of Faculties);"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 638A to 647, and 655A to 719. As noble Lords will note, these consequential amendments are numerous and technical, so I do not propose to address each one in detail. The current regulatory framework is established under a number of provisions in existing legislation, primarily the Solicitors Act 1974, the Administration of Justice Act 1985, the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and the Access to Justice Act 1999. Amendments to the Solicitors Act have in the main been dealt with in Schedule 16. Those Acts variously deal with the regulation, education and training applying to the provision of advocacy, litigation, conveyancing and probate services. They also set out the persons who have a role in regulating those services, such as the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice, the Secretary of State—the Lord Chancellor—the Legal Services Consultative Panel and the Office of Fair Trading.
	As noble Lords will know, the Bill simplifies this model by placing the board as the single oversight regulator, sweeping away the maze of existing regulators who have overlapping responsibilities. It also sets out the board's duties in designating approved regulators in considering regulatory arrangements and ensuring compliance with the regulatory objectives. Further, a large number of existing statutory provisions refer to lawyers of a named description or certain types of legal professions. For example, many statutory provisions refer to services provided by solicitors and barristers. Under the Bill, legal services are services provided by persons authorised in respect of reserved legal activities irrespective of title. It will be possible for persons other than those with titles such as "barrister" or "solicitor" to carry out those reserved activities, so it is important that existing legislation is updated to reflect the position, covering all persons who are or may become so authorised.
	Given the scale of these changes, it is clearly essential to repeal a number of existing provisions to the current regime, or where appropriate to amend them so that they are consistent with the regulatory framework established under the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 632:
	Clause 197, page 109, line 5, after "means" insert "(subject to subsection (4A))"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 632ZA:
	Clause 197, page 109, line 5, after "person" insert "providing services to clients, directly or indirectly,"

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I make no apology for returning to this subject, which we dealt with on the last day in Committee. I do so because I believe there is a growing consensus across parties and the professions that we really need to get the approach to Part 5 right. One of the problems is that Part 5 fails to deal with the new structures on a risk-based approach, something I know Sir David Clementi was keen to see and to which the Government signed up when they accepted the Hampton principles in March 2005. When we last debated the issue, the Minister summarised the problem as she saw it in the following terms:
	"A body either has non-lawyers in positions of control or it does not. Consequently, it is either a licensable body or it is not".—[Official Report, 18/4/07; col. 301.]
	That approach fails to recognise the point of difference between legal disciplinary practices and multidisciplinary practices which Sir David Clementi said was at the heart of his review.
	The most important point here is that legal disciplinary practices are low risk—I refer to LDPs as defined by Sir David Clementi—and the concerns that they should fall outside Part 5 could be addressed quite simply by introducing new clauses to require fitness to own or registration of non-lawyer principals without burdening such practices with the full difficulties arising from the legislative requirements of Part 5. This amendment seeks to remove that artificial distinction and allow legal disciplinary practices with non-client-facing managers to develop and grow, which I believe would drive up the efficiency of legal services providers and enable them to attract and retain the best talent. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I was sad to see these amendments retabled because I thought in Committee that we had considered and agreed that non-lawyer managers would still be in positions to influence a business even if only assisting in the development of legal services or indeed delivering ancillary services. It is important that we are confident that legal services are properly protected. Exempting certain types of non-lawyer manager is in my view a step too far. We are not confident that the board or for that matter other approved regulators will be able to effectively regulate them under this approach. The noble Lord is right that we need to be careful and in a sense cautious about Part 5. Being a partner or a director in a firm brings with it influence and responsibility. Where legal services are concerned it is right that anyone in such an influential position can be under effective regulation, but applied flexibly. Under Part 5, that is the case in practice. In my view, the provisions for low-risk bodies that we have put in Clause 106 strike the right balance. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I know what the Minister said, but I am referring to the report by Sir David Clementi which emphasised that the approach must be on a risk-based analysis. I am not sure that the Government have fully accepted that. Although I note what the Minister says, I want to reflect on the matter and consider it further. In return perhaps the Minister might also see if there is a further way through other than the one she explained, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 632A not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 633:
	Clause 197, page 110, line 7, at end insert—
	"(4A) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision modifying the definition of "manager" in its application to a body of persons formed under, or in so far as the body is recognised by, law having effect outside England and Wales."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 198 [Minor and consequential provision etc]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 634 and 635:
	Clause 198, page 110, line 16, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Clause 198, page 110, line 18, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 199 [Transitional provision]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 636:
	Clause 199, page 110, line 32, after "transitional" insert "and transitory"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 201 [Commencement]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 637:
	Clause 201, page 110, line 39, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Neill of Bladen: moved Amendment No. 637A:
	Clause 201, page 110, line 39, at end insert "provided always that no order may be made by the Secretary of State bringing into force Part 5 of this Act and the related Schedules 10 to 14 until after—
	(a) consideration by both Houses of Parliament of a comprehensive report to be commissioned by the Lord Chancellor from an independent source analyzing—(i) the advantages or disadvantages (or both) which may be realistically expected to flow from the implementation of Part 5, including the benefits or risks (or both) to consumers;(ii) the potential enhancement or curtailment (or both) of access to justice; and(iii) the threats actual or internationally perceived to the independence of lawyers practising in England and Wales; and(b) the laying of the draft of a statutory instrument designed to bring into force the whole or part of Part 5 and the related Schedules before each House of Parliament and approval thereof by resolution of each House.
	(3) In this section an "independent source" means a source (such as a research organisation) which is independent of Government, free of connections with any political party and free of connections with any individual or body representing consumer interests or lawyers."

Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I declare an interest as a practising member of the Bar, a former member of the Bar Council and sometime chairman of the Bar. This is a plea by me with support from other Members of the House that we should be told more by Government about Part 5 and about alternative business structures before we allow it to be put into operation or before we allow the Legal Services Board to take steps to implement those provisions. My plea is based on the degree of ignorance we have about the alternative business structures. My primary concern is about access to justice: what is going to happen to the small firms of solicitors; and what will be the consequences on the ground of implementing Part 5 in the real world? Secondly, I have a deep query about who is going to invest in the big partnerships and what their motivation will be. Thirdly, I am concerned about the degree of our ignorance about what is happening in other countries in this area. What about the common law countries and the civil law countries, particularly in the European Union? Are we going to find ourselves in a pariah status as lawyers? At the moment the legal profession is widely admired for its integrity and independence and we need to reflect and have information before we move forward.
	I will keep this discussion as brief as possible; the hour is late, but it is a serious matter. I turn to access to justice. When I spoke on the sixth day in Committee I went through the testimony that had gradually been built up in earlier debates to show how worried senior lawyers were about the state of solicitors, by which I mean the economic stability and their chances of survival in various parts of the country. The starkest warning was from the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I shall not read out again what he said, but it was particularly striking, because he said he was in the position of someone whose duty it was to travel around the United Kingdom and take note of what was happening to legal practices and the state of solicitors. He found that concern was expressed countrywide, as your Lordships will find in Hansard on 23 January this year at col. 1057.
	On the same day the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, expressed his concern about Wales and the position of solicitors there, from close personal knowledge—his earlier practice in law was there, of course. With regard to Yorkshire and Cumbria, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, spoke of his worry and his knowledge of the anxieties in those areas on 6 February, and on the same day the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke about the West Country, with which she is very familiar. On an earlier occasion—I have not recorded the date here—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, stated that he was particularly concerned about the position in rural areas.
	There is a feeling of concern about just how strong and stable these medium, small and very small solicitors' firms throughout the country are, and we are interested in finding out what the effect will be of the establishment of these new forms of practice. That needs to be looked at. We want to have some evidence-based conclusions that are up to date. Merely citing what Sir John Vickers may have written in 2001 in the Office of Fair Trading report will not do; in my submission, we have to have a serious study now. In a moment I will mention the literature the Minister sent me, but I have not found that it directly addresses the concerns I have in this field.
	My second point, which is perhaps smaller, is the astonishing lack of information we have about who will come forward and fund these big partnerships. I should have mentioned that I was on the Joint Committee under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. I think I am right in saying that Co-operative Legal Services said it was enthusiastic about going down this route and supporting law firms by putting a financial stake in, but I believe that is the only bit of evidence we had.
	I have asked this question before, but I shall repeat it: are we going to have law firms bought and sold like football clubs? Will they end up being quoted on the Stock Exchange? I believe that is just about to be developed in New South Wales. What is happening in other countries? Do we find models for these proposals working in other countries? I stated last time, and no one has contradicted me, that the United States of America has been firmly against this sort of financial participation, the ownership of firms by outside interests.
	The only Commonwealth area about which the Minister has supplied evidence is New South Wales. I shall say a word about that because this is new material that I have not seen before. I base this all on an article written by the Legal Services Commissioner in New South Wales, a Mr Steven Mark, and his co-author, Georgina Cowdroy, the senior legal and policy officer in the commission. It appeared on page 671 of the Penn State International Law Review in volume 22, part 4, in 2004, and I am indebted to the Minister for kindly letting me see the article. The current position is that there are now in New South Wales some 300 incorporated legal practices. I am unable to say how many of those are multi-disciplinary, because we are not told that.
	The commissioner makes a rather interesting statement:
	"The Law Society's records indicate that at present, there are almost 300 ILPs in NSW. The vast majority of these ILPs were previously sole practitioners or small partnerships, which changed their ownership structures to obtain the perceived benefits of incorporation. However, aside from having to comply with the ILP legislation, such practices have experienced little change in their daily management and operation".
	So they have taken on a corporate structure to derive a benefit for themselves with no thought of what good it will confer on consumers. The commissioner says elsewhere in the article that this may be disadvantageous because the limited liability obtained by the partners means that not so many purses can be pursued by the dissatisfied claimant. As I say, there are 300 of these bodies, none of which has yet become a public listed company. It is open to them to do that. Under the Legal Profession Act the solicitor's duty is paramount and duties to shareholders come second. However, it is pretty clear that the commissioner, who has had experience of these incorporated partnerships, does not really believe that. He says that despite the assurances that the legal duty to maintain professional standards is paramount,
	"my tentative view is that where an ILP becomes publicly listed, the duty of an ILP solicitor director to the court and to clients will inevitably conflict with the duty of a solicitor director to the ILP and its shareholders. Furthermore, I believe that such conflict is irreconcilable. While the perceived conflict between professional ethics and profit is an ongoing concern in the regulation of at least some present partnerships, in publicly listed ILPs, shareholder pressure for commercial gain will introduce a dynamic for solicitor directors which was non-existent in partnership structures".
	In other words, the profit motive is likely to become dominant and possibly irresistible, notwithstanding the fine words in the statute.
	The other aspect that I mentioned briefly previously is that we are still in the same state of ignorance about the position regarding the civil law in European countries. The only country that we know anything about is Germany. All the members of its association equivalent of a combined Bar Council and Law Society belong to an organisation, the abbreviation of which is BRAK. It is quite obvious from the evidence that it sent to our committee that it regards our proposals as an abomination because in Germany the independence of the lawyer is enshrined in constitutional provisions of law and the notions that we are considering here would be completely impossible. In the type of structure that is contemplated here you could not have a German partner coming in as a shareholder and owning a firm. A German lawyer can have a stake but he has to be part of the firm and subject to the professional ethic. What about the position in other countries in Europe? We do not have the faintest idea what is happening in France, Sweden or Ireland. As I thought about this today it struck me what an incredibly insular approach we are taking. We are ploughing on with these proposals without making any inquiry about what happens in the rest of the world.
	My amendment would require the Government to put before us proper targeted information. I do not believe that would cause any delay. Nothing will come into force immediately. A document I was sent by one of the interested parties stated that we are looking at 2010 before the Legal Services Board will really get into action. That leaves plenty of time for a bit of decent research to come back to us within 12 months. I beg to move.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, for tabling the amendment. If Part 5 is to succeed, three things will be needed: rigorous procedures to ensure that those who own law firms are fit and proper persons, a guarantee that the same consumer protections will apply to externally owned law firms as well as to other law firms and the assurance that proper attention is given to the impact on access to justice before licensing decisions are taken.
	Two of those issues are dealt with satisfactorily by the Bill, which provides a comprehensive framework to ensure that external owners will be fit and proper persons. Furthermore, regulators of ABS firms will be able to ensure that the bodies that they license are subject to the same conduct of business rules and other consumer and public protection requirements as apply to existing law firms.
	However, the Bill does not ensure proper consideration of the impact on access to justice. It is highly likely that the impact of these new providers on access to justice will vary considerably in different parts of the country. In urban areas, it may well be that externally owned law firms would simply provide desirable extra competition without any significant consumer detriment. The position may well be different in rural areas where the existing network of law firms is already thinly spread and under considerable economic pressure. In those areas, it is entirely possible that a new provider, concentrating on easily delivered routine legal services, might flourish, but only at the expense of making existing law firms unviable.
	That could be damaging in two separate ways. First, there is a significant risk that large new providers would not be readily accessible to disadvantaged consumers, particularly if they operated from out of town sites, as many supermarkets are. Secondly, many essential but less remunerative services may become unavailable. Existing law firms fold because the new providers are highly unlikely to offer the services concerned. Those services might include advice to parents whose children are involved in care proceedings, or help for the elderly having difficulties in relation to a care home; and they might simply become unavailable in large swathes throughout the country. Once services of that sort are lost, it will be exceedingly difficult to replace them.
	It is imperative therefore that the Government should analyse the likely impact of ABSs before implementing this part of the Bill. Research carried out, as the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, indicated, prior to implementation of the provisions cannot be definitive; it will simply be a prediction based on economic analysis. The fact that it may not be perfect is no reason to proceed without it. Research on these lines could be particularly useful in highlighting especial risks and in suggesting what safeguards could be introduced to mitigate them.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I, too, express great appreciation and support of the amendment and the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, who has, even at this late stage, brought new and forceful arguments to a debate that we have had before. As we have had it before, I have nothing new to add, so I will be brief. The amendment, to which my name is added, may appeal to the Government more than my earlier attempt to suggest that Part 5 should not be made operative prior to the conduct of a pilot scheme to test whether the fears about access to justice are real.
	For the reason just given by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the circumstances will vary from one part to another. The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Neill—that careful studies should be made available before the implementation of Part 5—is probably the better route. Furthermore, it is clear that it need not hold up the Government's desire to give effect to Part 5, since the studies could be put in hand virtually immediately and would no doubt greatly enhance our understanding of what is at risk and how best to avoid any adverse consequences for licensing alternative business structures.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful. I am only sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, that the late hour means that his words fall on few ears. I am sure that noble Lords will none the less read our debate with interest. I agree with the sentiments expressed by noble Lords: this is an important debate on Part 5.
	I agree that we should proceed cautiously with the development of alternative business structures. My principal concern is with doing more research, as the amendment requires, and the value that that would bring to our deliberations. Building on the excellent work of Sir David Clementi and working with stakeholders, we have obviously thought about and carefully reviewed the ABS proposals. That work was of course informed by the work of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, chaired—"so ably" it says in my notes, but I agree—as noble Lords will know, by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. The debates on this matter have been both informed and occasionally lengthy, but none the less important.
	The difficulty with further research is that, in a sense, it takes us into a slight Catch-22. I have provided the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, with information about the different approaches overseas. He rightly talks about New South Wales, where they have been looking at alternative business structures. We are interested in developments in other jurisdictions. He talked about the firm floated on the stock exchange there. There was recent publicity about the Australian firm Slater & Gordon, saying that it plans to be one of the world's first law firms to float on the stock exchange; the first was actually in 2004.
	Monitoring the effect of this sort of change on the Australian market and consumers is important, but I stress that what happens in one country is unlikely to exactly map across to another. The different safeguards make comparisons difficult, and services offered by firms in one jurisdiction may differ from other jurisdictions and ABS firms here. Although it is important to be aware of developments in other countries, that is not how to drive the development of alternative business structures in England and Wales.
	That does not mean that the noble Lord's concern should not be addressed. Indeed, the amendments accepted by your Lordships' House on the second day of Report, 18 April, are important: the requirement for licensing authorities to publish policy statements, setting out how they would satisfy their Clause 24 objectives—including, importantly, access to justice when granting ABS licences. Government amendments introduced a duty for the board's annual report to deal with how the activities of a licensing authority and licensed bodies have affected the regulatory objectives, again including access to justice. That is the right approach to monitoring. Placing the duty on the Legal Services Board avoids fragmentation and maintains a central oversight of the regime's impact by the LSB.
	There is no disagreement between us over the need to recognise and minimise risks. However, I remain concerned that requiring more research at this stage adds little. It seems attractive to look at other jurisdictions where ABS has been allowed but, as I have indicated, the potential for learning from them is limited. Noble Lords talked about the German BRAK. On a recent overseas visit, I heard that the German Parliament is looking to legislate in this direction. The relationship between the reaction of the German BRAK and what is happening in Germany may be relevant to our deliberations, but it looks as if Germany may be heading in the same direction. We will have to find more information because that was new to me, but it appears to be the case.
	To draw conclusions about the factors covered in the amendment would be difficult because there is not an ABS in operation. Parliament would find it difficult to draw any conclusion or take a decision to commence Part 5, because there would not be any evidence. It is a Catch-22; unless we work on alternative business structures we cannot ascertain how successful they have been, and without that how can Parliament make a decision on research that cannot possibly exist?
	The difficulty that I have is that we have given the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, all the information that we have. We will proceed with caution; that is absolutely right and proper. We intend to monitor effectively; we have tabled amendments to that effect based on what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said in Committee on the importance of thinking about monitoring.
	I accept all the concerns about rural communities. ABS licences can have conditions within them that could make sure that those seeking advice on childcare proceedings or those in rural communities can be well protected. I endorse that approach. That is why I endorse the need for information on how all the regulatory objectives have been met including, importantly, access to justice. The safeguards that we have in the Bill recognise the risks and concerns. We are confident that we can get ABS development at the right pace and in the right direction. I know that the licensing authority will take into account the concerns raised, and will have to have regard to policy statements.
	As I have already said, your Lordships' House has agreed that the LSB should be under a duty to report annually on how ABS licensing affects regulatory objectives. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, that will be more effective than the amendment. It will be based on what is happening on the ground rather than a theoretical set of assumptions on alternative business structures which do not exist. We will achieve what he wants, which is to make sure to do this in a measured and constructive way, but we need to begin the process in order to ascertain that. The safeguards that we have accepted within the Bill will make sure that noble Lords' concerns will be met. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the courteous welcome that she gave to what I said and for showing that she agreed with a high percentage of my observations, although not the final conclusion as to what should happen. I tend to be an optimist. I believe that she is going to find it hard in the days that follow to resist the combined oratory of myself and my noble friends as it works on her mind very persuasively. She has reinforced my argument by citing the proposed German legislation. I knew nothing about that; I am most grateful to her for informing us. It is precisely the sort of information that we ought to have and it makes my point. In the mean time, leaving these forces working on the noble Baroness's mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 21 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 638 to 647:
	Schedule 21, page 295, line 34, at end insert—
	"Public Notaries Act 1801 (c. 79)
	A1 The Public Notaries Act 1801 is amended in accordance with paragraphs B1 and C1.
	B1 In section 1 (no person to be created to act as public notary, to do any notarial act etc unless duly admitted), omit ", or use and exercise the office of a notary, or do any notarial act,".
	C1 In section 14 (Act not to extend to certain persons), omit from "proctor" to "any other".
	Public Notaries Act 1843 (c. 90)
	D1 The Public Notaries Act 1843 is amended in accordance with paragraphs E1 to G1.
	E1 After section 7 insert—
	"7A Effect of admission or grant of faculty
	(1) Despite any provision made by the Public Notaries Acts, a person's entitlement to carry on an activity which is a notarial activity is to be determined in accordance with the Legal Services Act 2007.
	(2) Nothing in the Public Notaries Acts is to be regarded, for the purposes of paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 3 to the Legal Services Act 2007 (exempt persons in relation to notarial activities) as authorising a person to carry on such an activity.
	(3) For this purpose—
	"the Public Notaries Acts" means this Act and the Public Notaries Act 1801;
	"exempt person" and "notarial activity" have the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007."
	F1 In section 8 (Master of Faculties may issue commissions to take oaths)—
	(a) the existing provision becomes subsection (1), and(b) after that subsection insert—"(2) For the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, the issue of a commission under subsection (1) is to be treated as an authorisation to carry on the relevant activities by virtue of another enactment (see paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 3 to that Act).(3) In subsection (2), "relevant activities" means the activities authorised by the commission."
	G1 Omit section 10 (offence of practising as notary without authorisation)."
	Schedule 21, page 295, line 34, at end insert—
	"Bills of Exchange Act 1882 (c. 61)
	"H1 The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 is amended in accordance with paragraphs I1 and J1.
	I1 In section 51 (noting or protest of bill), after subsection (7) insert—
	"(7A) In subsection (7) "notary" includes a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to any activity which constitutes a notarial activity (within the meaning of that Act)."
	J1 In section 94 (protest when notary not accessible)—
	(a) the existing provision becomes subsection (1), and(b) after that subsection insert—"(2) In subsection (1), "notary" includes a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to any activity which constitutes a notarial activity (within the meaning of that Act).""
	Schedule 21, page 295, line 35, at end insert—
	"Z1 The Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 1A."
	Schedule 21, page 295, line 36, leave out "of the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889, in subsection"
	Schedule 21, page 295, line 37, at end insert—
	"1A In section 6 (powers as to oaths and notarial acts abroad), after subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) In subsection (1), "notary public" includes a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to any activity which constitutes a notarial activity (within the meaning of that Act)."
	Benefices Act 1898 (c. 48)
	1B In section 3 of the Benefices Act 1898 (appeal against refusal of benefice)—
	(a) in subsection (2) for "counsel or a solicitor" substitute "an authorised person", and(b) after that subsection insert—"(2A) In subsection (2) "authorised person" means a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise a right of audience (within the meaning of that Act)."Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12)
	1C The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 1D to 1H.
	1D In section 37(1) (power to clear court while child or young person giving evidence), for "counsel or solicitors" substitute "legal representatives".
	1E In section 43 (admission of deposition in evidence), for "counsel or solicitor" substitute "legal representative".
	1F In section 47(2)(b) (procedure in youth courts), for "solicitors and counsel" substitute "legal representatives".
	1G In section 49(11) (restrictions on reports of proceedings), omit the definition of "legal representative".
	1H In section 107 (interpretation), after the definition of "legal guardian" insert—
	""legal representative" means a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act);".
	London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 (c. xcvii)
	1I In section 115 of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 (jurisdiction of tribunal of appeal)—
	(a) in subsection (2), for "counsel solicitor" substitute "an authorised person", and(b) after that subsection insert—"(2A) In subsection (2) "authorised person" means a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience (within the meaning of that Act)."Accommodation Agencies Act 1953 (c. 23)
	1J In section 1 of the Accommodation Agencies Act 1953 (illegal commissions and advertisements)—
	(a) in subsection (3), after "solicitor" insert "or an authorised person", and(b) in subsection (6), after "say:—" insert—
	""authorised person" means a person (other than a solicitor) who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which is a reserved legal activity (within the meaning of that Act);".
	Horserace Betting Levy Act 1969 (c. 14)
	1K In section 4 of the Horserace Betting Levy Act 1969 (non-renewal of bookmaker's permit)—
	(a) in subsection (2), for "or a solicitor" substitute ", a solicitor or an authorised person", and(b) after that subsection insert—"(2A) In subsection (2), "authorised person" means a person (other than counsel or a solicitor) who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act)." Taxes Management Act 1970 (c. 9)
	1L In section 20B of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (restrictions on power to require documents)—
	(a) in subsection (3), for "barrister, advocate or solicitor" (in both places) substitute "relevant lawyer",(b) in subsection (8), for "barrister, advocate or a solicitor" substitute "relevant lawyer", and(c) after subsection (14) insert—"(15) In this section "relevant lawyer" means a barrister, advocate, solicitor or other legal representative communications with whom may be the subject of a claim to professional privilege."Powers of Attorney Act 1971 (c. 27)
	1M In section 3 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 (proof of instruments creating powers of attorney)—
	(a) in subsection (1)(b) for "duly certificated notary public" substitute ", authorised person",(b) in subsection (3) for from ""duly" to "Act and" substitute ""authorised person" means a person (other than a solicitor) who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to any activity which constitutes a notarial activity (within the meaning of that Act) and".Poisons Act 1972 (c. 66)
	1N In section 9(7) of the Poisons Act 1972 (right to conduct proceedings), omit "notwithstanding that he is not of counsel or a solicitor".
	Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70)
	1O In section 223 of the Local Government Act 1972 (appearance of local authorities in legal proceedings), in subsection (1) for ", notwithstanding" to the end substitute "to conduct any such proceedings."
	Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c. 18)
	1P In section 6 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (attempts at reconciliation of parties to marriage) in subsection (1) for "solicitor" substitute "legal representative".
	Fair Trading Act 1973 (c. 41)
	1Q In section 29 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 (powers of entry and seizure)—
	(a) in subsection (5), for "barrister, advocate or solicitor" substitute "relevant lawyer", and(b) after subsection (5) insert—"(6) "Relevant lawyer" means a barrister, advocate, solicitor, or other legal representative communications with whom may be the subject of a claim to privilege."Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39)
	1R In section 146 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (exceptions from section 145), after subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) An authorised person (other than a barrister or solicitor) engaging in contentious business is not to be treated as doing so in the course of any ancillary credit business.
	(2B) In subsection (2A)—
	"authorised person" means a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act);
	"contentious business" means business done in or for the purposes of proceedings begun before a court or before an arbitrator, not being non-contentious or common form probate business (within the meaning of section 128 of the Supreme Court Act 1981)."
	Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65)
	1S In section 77 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (validity and revision of contracts), in subsection (4BB)(a) for "a barrister" (in first place) to the end substitute "a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act), and".
	Bail Act 1976 (c. 63)
	1T The Bail Act 1976 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 1U and 1V.
	1U In section 3 (general provisions), in subsection (6)(e) for "an authorised advocate" to the end substitute "a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act);".
	1V In section 5 (supplementary provisions about decisions on bail)—
	(a) in subsection (5), for "is represented by counsel or a solicitor unless his counsel or solicitor" substitute "has legal representation unless his legal representative", and(b) in subsection (6), for "is not represented by counsel or a solicitor" substitute "does not have legal representation"."
	Schedule 21, page 295, line 37, at end insert—
	"Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (c. 52)
	In section 3 of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (legal representation of certain persons), after subsection (5) insert—
	"(6) In this section—
	"counsel" includes any person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience (within the meaning of that Act);
	"solicitor" includes any person who, for the purposes of that Act, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act).""
	Schedule 21, page 296, line 1, at end insert—
	"1X The Race Relations Act 1976 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 1Y to 2.
	1Y In section 67A (national security: procedure), in subsection (3)(a) for "have a general" to the end substitute "be a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act), and".
	1Z In section 72 (validity and revision of contracts), in subsection (4BB)(a) for "a barrister" (in the first place) to the end substitute "a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act), and"."
	Schedule 21, page 296, line 2, leave out from "1A" to "(bodies"
	Schedule 21, page 296, line 19, at end insert—
	"Estate Agents Act 1979 (c. 38)
	3A In section 11 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (powers of entry and inspection)—
	(a) in subsection (8), for "counsel or solicitor" substitute "a relevant lawyer", and(b) after that subsection insert—"(9) For the purposes of subsection (8) "relevant lawyer" means counsel, a solicitor or other legal representative communications with whom may be the subject of a claim to privilege."Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)
	3B The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 3C and 3D.
	3C In section 144 (rule committee and rules of procedure)—
	(a) in subsection (3)(c), for from "granted" to "right" substitute "authorised by a relevant approved regulator", and(b) after subsection (3) insert—"(3A) In this section "relevant approved regulator" is to be construed in accordance with section 19(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007."
	3D In section 150 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of "legal representative" for "an authorised advocate" to the end substitute "a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act);".
	Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54)
	3E The Supreme Court Act 1981 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 3F and 3G.
	3F In section 86 (Crown Court Rule Committee)—
	(a) in subsection (1)(g), for from "granted" to "right" substitute "authorised by a relevant approved regulator", and(b) after subsection (6) insert—"(7) In this section "relevant approved regulator" is to be construed in accordance with section 19(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007."
	3G In section 90(3B) (conduct of proceedings by Official Solicitor) for "section 28(2)(a) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990" substitute "the fact that he is a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act)".
	Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2)
	3H The Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 3I to 3L.
	3I In section 86 (authorised excuses for failures as to return and declarations)—
	(a) in subsection (1A), for "or solicitor" substitute ", solicitor or authorised person", and(b) after that subsection insert—"(1B) In subsection (1A) "authorised person" means a person (other than a barrister or solicitor) who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience (within the meaning of that Act)."
	3J In section 156 (costs of trying election petition)—
	(a) in subsection (5), for "or solicitor" substitute ", a solicitor or an authorised person", and(b) after that subsection insert—"(5A) In subsection (5) "authorised person" means a person (other than counsel or a solicitor) who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience (within the meaning of that Act)."
	3K In section 162 (member of legal and certain other professions)—
	(a) the existing provision becomes subsection (1),(b) in that subsection—(i) after "solicitor" insert ", authorised person", and(ii) for "or tribunal" (in both places) substitute ", tribunal or other body", and(c) after that subsection insert—"(2) In subsection (1) "authorised person" means a person (other than a barrister or solicitor) who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes a reserved legal activity (within the meaning of that Act)."
	3L In section 181 (Director of Public Prosecutions)—
	(a) in subsection (3), for "or solicitor" substitute ", solicitor or authorised person", and(b) after that subsection insert—"(3A) In subsection (3) "authorised person" means a person (other than a barrister or solicitor) who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience (within the meaning of that Act)."Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20)
	3M The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 3N to 3T.
	3N In section 35 (remand to hospital for report on accused's mental condition), in subsection (6) for "counsel or a solicitor and his counsel or solicitor" substitute "an authorised person who".
	3O In section 36 (removal of accused person to hospital for treatment), in subsection (5) for "counsel or a solicitor and his counsel or solicitor" substitute "an authorised person who".
	3P In section 38 (interim hospital orders), in subsection (2) for "counsel or a solicitor and his counsel or solicitor" substitute "an authorised person who".
	3Q In section 52 (further provisions as to persons remanded by magistrates' courts), in subsection (7)(b) for "counsel or a solicitor" substitute "an authorised person".
	3R In section 54 (requirements as to medical evidence), in subsection (3)(a)—
	(a) for "counsel or a solicitor" substitute "an authorised person", and(b) for "his counsel or solicitor" substitute "that authorised person".
	3S In section 55 (interpretation of Part 3), in subsection (1) before the definitions of "child" and "young person" insert—
	""authorised person" means a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience (within the meaning of that Act);".
	3T In section 78 (procedure of Mental Health Review Tribunals), in subsection (7) for "counsel or a solicitor" substitute "an authorised person (within the meaning of Part 3)".
	County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28)
	3U In section 147 of the County Courts Act 1984 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of "legal representative" for "an authorised advocate" to the end substitute "a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act);".
	Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (c. 51)
	3V In section 219 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (power to require information)—
	(a) in subsection (3) for "barrister or solicitor" substitute "relevant lawyer",(b) in subsection (4) for "solicitor" (in both places) substitute "relevant lawyer", and(c) after that subsection insert— "(5) In this section "relevant lawyer" means a barrister, advocate, solicitor or other legal representative communications with whom may be the subject of a claim to professional privilege."Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23)
	3W In section 15 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of "legal representative" for "an authorised advocate" to the end substitute "a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act);".
	Administration of Justice Act 1985 (c. 61)
	3X The Administration of Justice Act 1985 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 3Y and 3Z.
	3Y In section 41 (application of disciplinary provisions to legal aid complaints against barristers), in subsection (2) after "those provisions" insert "and despite section 154 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (approved regulators not to make provision for redress)".
	3Z In section 69(2) (commencement) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Lord Chancellor".
	Social Security Act 1986 (c. 50)
	3ZA In section 56 of the Social Security Act 1986 (legal proceedings), in subsection (1) omit "although not a barrister or solicitor".
	Building Societies Act 1986 (c. 53)
	3ZB The Building Societies Act 1986 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 3ZC to 3ZE.
	3ZC In section 52 (powers to obtain information and documents etc)—
	(a) in subsection (8) for "barrister, solicitor or advocate" substitute "relevant lawyer", and(b) in subsection (13) after the definition of "approved" insert—
	""relevant lawyer" means a barrister, advocate, solicitor or other legal representative communications with whom may be the subject of a claim to professional privilege;".
	3ZD In section 67 (directors, etc, not to accept commission in connection with loans), in subsection (7), in the definition of "solicitor" for "licensed conveyancer" substitute "any person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes a reserved instrument activity (within the meaning of that Act)".
	3ZE In section 69 (disclosure and record of income of related businesses), in subsection (17), in the definition of "solicitor" for "licensed conveyancer" to the end substitute "any person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes a reserved instrument activity (within the meaning of that Act)."
	Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 (c. 4)
	3ZF In section 4 of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 (representation at disciplinary proceedings)—
	(a) in subsection (2) for "either by counsel or by a solicitor" substitute "by a relevant lawyer",(b) in subsection (7) for "counsel or a solicitor" substitute "a relevant lawyer", and(c) after that subsection insert—"(8) In this section "relevant lawyer" means—(a) in relation to Scotland or Northern Ireland, counsel or a solicitor, and(b) in relation to England and Wales, a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience (within the meaning of that Act)."Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c. 1)
	3ZG In the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, in section 778 (power to obtain information)—
	(a) in subsection (3) for "solicitor" substitute "relevant lawyer", and(b) after that subsection insert—"(4) In subsection (3) "relevant lawyer" means a barrister, advocate, solicitor or other legal representative communications with whom may be the subject of a claim to professional privilege or, in Scotland, protected from disclosure in legal proceedings on the grounds of confidentiality of communication.""
	Schedule 21, page 296, line 19, at end insert—
	"Companies Act 1985 (c. 6)
	In Schedule 15D of the Companies Act 1985 (disclosures)—
	(a) the existing paragraph 46 becomes sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph,(b) in that sub-paragraph for "solicitor, barrister" substitute "relevant lawyer", and(c) after that sub-paragraph insert—"(2) "Relevant lawyer" means—(a) a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes a reserved legal activity (within the meaning of that Act),(b) a solicitor or barrister in Northern Ireland, or(c) a solicitor or advocate in Scotland.""
	Schedule 21, page 296, line 39, at end insert—
	"Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (c. 34)
	9A In section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (deeds and their execution)—
	(a) in subsection (5) for "a solicitor" (in the first place) to "conveyancer" (in the second place) substitute "a relevant lawyer, or an agent or employee of a relevant lawyer", and(b) in subsection (6) for the definition of "duly certificated notary public" substitute—
	""relevant lawyer" means a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes a reserved instrument activity (within the meaning of that Act)."
	Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41)
	9B The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 9C to 9T.
	9C Omit the following provisions—
	(a) section 17 (the statutory objective and the general principle);(b) section 18 (the statutory duty);(c) section 18A (the Consultative Panel);(d) section 27 (rights of audience);(e) section 28 (rights to conduct litigation);(f) section 29 (authorised bodies);(g) section 31 (barristers and solicitors: rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation);(h) section 31A (employed advocates).
	9D In section 31B (advocates and litigators employed by Legal Services Commission)—
	(a) for subsection (1) substitute—"(1) This section applies where a person—(a) is authorised by a relevant approved regulator ("the regulator") to carry on an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation, and(b) is employed by the Legal Services Commission, or by any body established and maintained by that Commission.(1A) Any rules of the regulator which fall within subsection (2) shall not have effect in relation to that person.",(b) in subsection (2)—(i) for "body" (in each place) substitute "regulator", and(ii) for "rules of conduct" substitute "conduct rules",(c) in subsection (3) for "body" substitute "regulator", and(d) after subsection (3) insert—"(4) For the purposes of this section "relevant approved regulator" is to be construed in accordance with section 19(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007."
	9E In section 31C (change of authorised body)—
	(a) for subsection (1) substitute—"(1) Where a person—(a) has at any time been authorised by a relevant approved regulator to exercise a right of audience before a court in relation to proceedings of a particular description, and(b) becomes authorised by another relevant approved regulator to exercise a right of audience before that court in relation to that description of proceedings,any qualification regulations of the relevant approved regulator mentioned in paragraph (b) which relate to that right are not to have effect in relation to the person.",(b) in subsection (2) for "the body" substitute "the relevant approved regulator",(c) in subsection (3) for "body" (in each place) substitute "relevant approved regulator", and(d) after that subsection insert—"(4) In this section "relevant approved regulator" is to be construed in accordance with section 19(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007."
	9F Omit sections 34 to 52 (extension of conveyancing services).
	9G Omit sections 54 and 55 (preparation of probate papers etc).
	9H In section 60 (regulation of right of Scottish and Northern Ireland lawyers to practise in England and Wales)—
	(a) in subsection (1) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Lord Chancellor",(b) in subsection (2) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Lord Chancellor", (c) after subsection (2) insert—"(2A) Regulations may be made under this section only if—(a) the Legal Services Board has made a recommendation under section 60A,(b) draft regulations were annexed to the recommendation, and(c) the regulations are in the same form as, or a form not materially different from, the draft regulations.", and(d) in subsection (4) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Lord Chancellor".
	9I After that section insert—
	"60A Procedural requirements relating to recommendations for the purposes of section 60
	(1) Before making a recommendation under this section, the Legal Services Board must publish a draft of—
	(a) the proposed recommendation, and(b) the proposed draft regulations.
	(2) The draft must be accompanied by a notice which states that representations about the proposals may be made to the Board within a specified period.
	(3) Before making the recommendation, the Board must have regard to any representations duly made.
	(4) If the draft regulations to be annexed to the recommendation differ from the draft regulations published under subsection (1)(b) in a way which is, in the opinion of the Board, material, the Board must, before making the recommendation, publish the draft recommendations along with a statement detailing the changes made and the reasons for the changes."
	9J Omit section 63 (legal professional privilege).
	9K Omit section 69 (exemption from liability for damages etc).
	9L Omit section 70 (offences).
	9M In section 71 (qualification for judicial and certain other appointments)—
	(a) in subsection (4) for "granted by an authorised body" substitute "exercisable by virtue of an authorisation given by a relevant approved regulator",(b) in subsection (6) for "the authorised body concerned" substitute "the relevant approved regulator", and(c) after that subsection insert—"(6A) In this section "relevant approved regulator" is to be construed in accordance with section 19(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007."
	9N In section 75 (judges etc barred from legal practice), after paragraph (b) insert—
	"(ba) carry on any notarial activities (within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007);".
	9O Omit section 113 (administration of oaths and taking of affidavits).
	9P (1) Section 119 (interpretation) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) omit the following definitions—
	"authorised advocate"
	"authorised body" and "appropriate authorised body"
	"authorised litigator"
	"authorised practitioner"
	"Consultative Panel"
	"duly certificated notary public"
	"the general principle"
	"qualified person"
	"the statutory objective".
	(3) In that subsection, for the definition of "court" substitute—
	""court" has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 197 of that Act);".
	(4) In that subsection, for the definition of "qualification regulations" and "rules of conduct" substitute—
	""qualification regulations" and "conduct rules", in relation to a body, have the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 20 of that Act);".
	(5) In that subsection, in the definition of "right to conduct litigation"—
	(a) in paragraph (a) after "court" insert "in England and Wales",(b) for "and" at the end of that paragraph substitute—"(aa) to commence, prosecute and defend such proceedings; and".
	(6) In subsection (3) for from "(including" to the end substitute "to conduct rules includes a reference to practice rules (within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 20 of that Act))."
	9Q In section 120 (regulations and orders) omit—
	(a) in subsection (4) —(i) "26(1), 37(10), 40(1)", and(ii) from "paragraph 24" to "Schedule 9", and(b) subsection (5).
	9R In section 125 (power to make provision consequential on provision made by Part 2 of Administration of Justice Act 1985 etc)—
	(a) in subsection (4) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Lord Chancellor", and(b) for subsection (5) substitute—"(5) In subsection (4)—(a) "relevant enactments" means such enactments or instruments passed or made before or in the same Session as the Legal Services Act 2007 was passed as may be specified in the order, and (b) the reference to Part 2 is a reference to that Part as amended by that Act or any enactment or instruments passed or made before or in the same Session as that Act was passed."
	9S Omit the following provisions—
	(a) Schedule 4 (authorised bodies);(b) Schedule 5 (the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board);(c) Schedule 6 (the Conveyancing Appeals Tribunals);(d) Schedule 7 (the Conveyancing Ombudsman Scheme);(e) in Part 2 of Schedule 8 (amendments of provisions relating to powers of Conveyancing Licensing Council etc), paragraphs 14 to 20 and 21(1)(b);(f) Schedule 9 (probate).
	9T In paragraph 17 of Schedule 19 (revocation of appointment under section 1(1) of the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Lord Chancellor"."
	Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43)
	9U In section 114 (appointment etc of inspectors), in subsection (4) omit ", although not of counsel or a solicitor,".
	Friendly Societies Act 1992 (c. 40)
	9V In section 62 of the Friendly Societies Act 1992 (powers to obtain information and documents etc)—
	(a) in subsection (7), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—"(a) by a relevant lawyer of a document or material contained in a privileged communication or, in Scotland, a communication which is protected from disclosure on the ground of confidentiality, made by or to the relevant lawyer in that capacity or the furnishing of information contained in such communication so made;", and(b) in subsection (12), at the end insert "; and
	"relevant lawyer" means a barrister, advocate, solicitor or other legal representative communications with whom may be the subject of a claim to professional privilege or, in Scotland, be protected from disclosure in legal proceedings on grounds of confidentiality of communication."
	Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 (c. 52)
	9W The Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 9X to 9Z.
	9X In section 194 (offence of failure to notify), in subsection (2) omit ", although not of counsel or a solicitor,".
	9Y In section 216 (constitution and proceedings of court of inquiry)—
	(a) in subsection (6) for "counsel or solicitor" (in both places) substitute "a relevant lawyer", and(b) after subsection (6) insert—"(7) In subsection (6) "relevant lawyer" means—(a) a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation within the meaning of that Act, or(b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland."
	9Z In section 288 (restriction on contracting out), in subsection (4B)(a) for "a barrister" (in the first place) to the end substitute "a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act), and"."
	Schedule 21, page 296, line 39, at end insert—
	"Companies Act 1989 (c. 40)
	In section 87 of the Companies Act 1989 (exceptions from restrictions on disclosure)—
	(a) in subsection (2), in paragraph (c)(i), for "solicitor" substitute "relevant lawyer", and (b) after that subsection insert—"(2A) In subsection (2)(c)(i) "relevant lawyer" means—(a) a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes a reserved legal activity (within the meaning of that Act),(b) a solicitor or barrister in Northern Ireland, or(c) a solicitor or advocate in Scotland."Finance Act 1993 (c. 34)
	In Schedule 21 of the Finance Act 1993 (oil taxation)—
	(a) the existing paragraph 7 becomes sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph,(b) in that sub-paragraph for "barrister, advocate or a solicitor" substitute "relevant lawyer", and(c) after that sub-paragraph insert—"(2) "Relevant lawyer" means a barrister, advocate, solicitor or other legal representative communications with whom may be the subject of a claim to professional privilege.""
	Schedule 21, page 297, line 38, at end insert—
	"Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33)
	In section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (interpretation and savings for sections 34 to 37 of that Act) in subsection (1), in the definition of "legal representative" for "an authorised advocate" to the end substitute "a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act); and"."
	Schedule 21, page 297, line 38, at end insert—
	"Environment Act 1995 (c. 25)
	16A In section 54 of the Environment Act 1995 (appearance in legal proceedings), omit "although not of counsel or a solicitor".
	Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50)
	16B In Part 1 of Schedule 3A to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (validity and revision of contracts), in paragraph 2(5)(a) for "a barrister" (in the first place) to the end substitute "a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act); and".
	Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18)
	16C In section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (restrictions on contracting out), in subsection (4)(a) for "a barrister" (in the first place) to the end substitute "a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act), and".
	Family Law Act 1996 (c. 27)
	16D In Schedule 4 of the Family Law Act 1996—
	(a) for paragraph 1 substitute—
	"1 In this Schedule "legal representative" means a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes a reserved instrument activity (within the meaning of that Act).",
	(b) in paragraph 3(3) for "solicitor" substitute "legal representative", and(c) in paragraph 5(2)(a) for "solicitor" substitute "legal representative".Civil Procedure Act 1997 (c. 12)
	16E In section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 (Civil Procedure Rule Committee)—
	(a) in subsection (2), in paragraph (f) for from "granted" to "right" substitute "authorised by a relevant approved regulator", and(b) after that subsection insert— "(2A) In subsection (2)(f) "relevant approved regulator" is to be construed in accordance with section 19(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007."Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Act 1997 (c. 39)
	16F In section 2 of the Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Act 1997 (meaning of other expressions), in subsection (1) in the definition of "legal representative" for "any authorised advocate" to "Act 1990)" substitute "a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act) and who is".
	National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39)
	16G The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 16H and 16I.
	16H In section 33 (proceedings for offences)—
	(a) in subsection (1) omit paragraph (a), and(b) after that subsection insert—"(1A) The persons who may conduct proceedings for an offence under this Act in England and Wales, before a magistrates' court, shall include any person authorised for the purpose by the Secretary of State."
	16I In section 49 (restrictions on contracting out) for subsection (7)(a) substitute—
	"(a) as regards England and Wales, a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act);"."
	Schedule 21, page 297, line 39, at end insert—
	"16J The Access to Justice Act 1999 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 16K to 17.
	16K In section 16(4) (code of conduct) after "consult" insert "the Legal Services Board,".
	16L In section 44 (barristers employed by solicitors)—
	(a) in subsection (1)—(i) omit "is employed by",(ii) for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—"(a) is employed by an authorised person, or(b) is a manager of such a person,", and(iii) for "his employer" substitute "the authorised person of which the barrister is an employee or a manager",(b) in subsection (2) after "employees" insert "or managers of an authorised person", and(c) after that subsection insert—"(3) In this section—
	"authorised person" means a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which is a reserved legal activity (within the meaning of that Act), and
	"manager" has the same meaning as in that Act (see section 197 of that Act)."
	16M In section 45 (fees on application for appointment as Queen's Counsel), in subsections (1) and (2) for "Secretary of State" (in each place) substitute "Lord Chancellor"."
	Schedule 21, page 297, line 40, leave out "of the Access to Justice Act 1999"
	Schedule 21, page 297, line 42, at end insert—
	"Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c. 23)
	17A In section 63 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (general interpretation etc of Part 2), in subsection (1), in the definition of "legal representative" for "any authorised advocate" to the end substitute "a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act);".
	Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43)
	17B In section 15 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (right to conduct litigation and right of audience)—
	(a) in subsection (2) for "section 28(2)(a) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990" substitute "the fact that he is a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to that activity", and(b) in subsection (3) for "section 27(2)(a) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990" substitute "the fact that he is a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to that activity".Finance Act 2002 (c. 23)
	17C The Finance Act 2002 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 17D and 17E.
	17D In Schedule 34 (stamp duty: withdrawal of group relief: supplementary provisions), in paragraph 10—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (2) for "A barrister or solicitor" substitute "A relevant lawyer", and(b) after that sub-paragraph insert—"(2A) "Relevant lawyer" means a barrister, advocate, solicitor or other legal representative communications with whom may be the subject of a claim to professional privilege."
	17E In Schedule 35 (stamp duty: withdrawal of relief for company acquisitions: supplementary provisions), in paragraph 11—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (2) for "A barrister or solicitor" substitute "A relevant lawyer", and(b) after that sub-paragraph insert—"(2A) "Relevant lawyer" means a barrister, advocate, solicitor or other legal representative communications with whom may be the subject of a claim to professional privilege.""
	Schedule 21, page 298, line 9, at end insert—
	"Finance Act 2003 (c. 14)
	In Schedule 13 to the Finance Act 2003 (stamp duty land tax: information powers)—
	(a) in paragraph 22, in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), for "barrister, advocate or solicitor" substitute "relevant lawyer",(b) after sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph insert—"(3) "Relevant lawyer" means a barrister, advocate, solicitor or other professional legal adviser communications with whom may be the subject of a claim to legal privilege.(4) "Legal privilege" here has the same meaning as in paragraph 35 of this Schedule.", and(c) in paragraph 25 for "barrister, advocate or solicitor" substitute "relevant lawyer (within the meaning of paragraph 22(3))"."
	Schedule 21, page 298, line 9, at end insert—
	"Licensing Act 2003 (c. 17)
	19 The Licensing Act 2003 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 20 and 21.
	20 In section 58 (meaning of "certified copy" in section 57 of that Act), after subsection (3) insert—
	"(4) In this section "notary" means a person (other than a solicitor) who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to any activity which constitutes a notarial activity (within the meaning of that Act)."
	21 In section 95 (meaning of "certified copy" in section 94 of that Act), after subsection (3) insert—
	"(4) In this section "notary" means a person (other than a solicitor) who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to any activity which constitutes a notarial activity (within the meaning of that Act)."
	Courts Act 2003 (c. 39)
	22 The Courts Act 2003 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 23 and 24.
	23 In section 70 (Criminal Procedure Rule Committee)—
	(a) in subsection (2), in paragraph (i)(i) for from "granted" to "right" substitute "authorised by a relevant approved regulator", and(b) after that subsection insert—"(2A) In subsection (2)(i)(i) "relevant approved regulator" is to be construed in accordance with section 19(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007."
	24 (1) Section 77 (Family Procedure Rule Committee) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)—
	(a) in paragraph (k) for from "granted" to "right" substitute "authorised by a relevant approved regulator",(b) in paragraph (l) for "granted that right" substitute "authorised", and(c) in paragraph (m) for "granted that right" substitute "authorised".
	(3) For subsection (5)(b) substitute—
	"(b) is a relevant approved regulator in relation to the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (or both)."
	(4) After subsection (7) insert—
	"(8) In this section "relevant approved regulator" is to be construed in accordance with section 19(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007."
	Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44)
	25 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 26 to 28.
	26 In section 56 (interpretation of Part 8), in subsection (1), in the definition of "legal representative", for "an authorised advocate" to the end substitute "a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act),".
	27 In section 159 (disclosure of pre-sentence reports etc), in subsection (2)(a) for "counsel or solicitor" substitute "legal representative".
	28 In section 160 (other reports of local probation boards and members of youth offending teams) in subsection (2)(a) for "counsel or solicitor" substitute "legal representative".
	Children Act 2004 (c. 31)
	29 In section 37 of the Children Act 2004 (Welsh family proceedings officers)—
	(a) in subsection (2) for "section 28(2)(a) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41)" substitute "the fact that he is a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to that activity",(b) in subsection (3) for "section 27(2)(a) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990" substitute "the fact that he is a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to that activity".Civil Partnership Act 2004 (c. 33)
	30 In section 42 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (attempts at reconciliation of civil partners) in subsection (2) for "solicitor" substitute "legal representative".
	Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005 (c. 10)
	31 In section 13 of the Public Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005 (investigations by Ombudsman)—
	(a) in subsection (4)(b), for "counsel, solicitor" substitute "an authorised person", and(b) after subsection (4) insert—"(4A) In subsection (4) "authorised person" means a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act)."Equality Act 2006 (c. 3)
	32 In Schedule 2 to the Equality Act 2006 (representations to Commission in relation to inquiry etc.), in paragraph 8—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (2)(b), for "a barrister, an advocate or a solicitor" substitute "a relevant lawyer", and(b) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—"(2A) "Relevant lawyer" means—(a) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland, or(b) a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act)."Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (c. 16)
	33 In section 12(2) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (power to bring criminal proceedings) omit "even though he is not a barrister or solicitor".
	National Health Service Act 2006 (c. 41)
	34 In section 194(4) of the National Health Service Act 2006 (conduct of proceedings under section 194) omit ", although he is not a barrister or solicitor,".
	National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 (c. 42)
	35 In section 142(4) of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 (conduct of proceedings under section 142) omit ", although he is not a barrister or solicitor,"."
	Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)
	36 In Schedule 2 to the Companies Act 2006 (exceptions from restrictions on disclosure), in paragraph 67—
	(a) for "solicitor, barrister, advocate" substitute "relevant lawyer", and(b) for ""Foreign lawyer"" to the end substitute—
	"In this paragraph—
	"foreign lawyer" means a person (other than a relevant lawyer) who is a foreign lawyer within the meaning of section 89(9) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;
	"relevant lawyer" means—
	(a) a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes a reserved legal activity (within the meaning of that Act),(b) a solicitor or barrister in Northern Ireland, or(c) a solicitor or advocate in Scotland."Income Tax Act 2007 (c. 3)
	37 The Income Tax Act 2007 is in accordance with paragraphs 38 to 41.
	38 In section 748 (power to obtain information)—
	(a) in subsection (4) for "solicitor" substitute "relevant lawyer",(b) after that subsection insert—"(4A) In this section "relevant lawyer" means a barrister, advocate, solicitor or other legal representative communications with whom may be the subject of a claim to professional privilege or, in Scotland, protected from disclosure in legal proceedings on grounds of confidentiality of communication.", and(c) in subsection (5) for "solicitors" substitute "relevant lawyers".
	39 In section 749 (restrictions on particulars to be provided by solicitors)—
	(a) in the heading for "solicitors" substitute "relevant lawyers",(b) for "solicitor" (in each place) substitute "relevant lawyer", and(c) for subsection (7) substitute—"(7) In this section—
	"relevant lawyer" means a barrister, advocate, solicitor or other legal representative communications with whom may be the subject of a claim to professional privilege or, in Scotland, protected from disclosure in legal proceedings on grounds of confidentiality of communication;
	"settlement" and "settlor" have the meanings given by section 620 of ITTOIA 2005."
	40 In section 771 (power to obtain information)—
	(a) in subsections (5) and (6) for "solicitor" (in each place) substitute "relevant lawyer", and(b) after subsection (6) insert—"(7) In this section "relevant lawyer" means a barrister, advocate, solicitor or other legal representative communications with whom may be the subject of a claim to professional privilege or, in Scotland, protected from disclosure in legal proceedings on grounds of confidentiality of communication."
	41 In section 788 (power to obtain information)—
	(a) in subsections (5) and (6) for "solicitor" (in each place) substitute "relevant lawyer", and(b) after subsection (6) insert—"(7) In this section "relevant lawyer" means a barrister, advocate, solicitor or other legal representative communications with whom may be the subject of a claim to professional privilege or, in Scotland, protected from disclosure in legal proceedings on grounds of confidentiality of communication."Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (c. )
	42 (1) Section 51 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (meaning of "relevant qualification") is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2), for from "awarded" to the end substitute "awarded by a body which, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an approved regulator in relation to the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act)."
	(3) In subsection (4)—
	(a) in paragraph (b), for "(2)(b)" substitute "(2)",(b) in paragraph (c), for from "the body" to "of that Act" substitute ", for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, the body—(i) is not an approved regulator in relation to the exercise of a right of audience (within the meaning of that Act), and(ii) is not an approved regulator in relation to the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act,", and(c) for from "paragraph 33(1)" to the end substitute "section 45 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (transitional etc. provision in consequence of cancellation of designation as approved regulator).""
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 22 [Transitional provision]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 648 to 659:
	Schedule 22, page 298, line 11, at end insert—
	"Transitory power to modify the functions of bodies
	A1 (1) Paragraphs A2 to A4 have effect until such time as the Board is first constituted in accordance with paragraph 1 of Schedule 1.
	(2) Where an order under paragraph A2 has effect immediately before that time, it is to be treated from that time as if it were an order made by the Lord Chancellor under section 68 (and in accordance with that section and section 69).
	(3) Where that order is made by virtue of paragraph A4, the reference in sub-paragraph (2) to section 68 is a reference to that section as modified by section 173.
	A2 (1) The Lord Chancellor may by order modify, or make any other provision relating to, the functions of a designated regulator or any other body.
	(2) For this purpose "designated regulator" means—
	(a) The Law Society;(b) The General Council of the Bar;(c) The Master of the Faculties;(d) The Institute of Legal Executives;(e) the Council for Licensed Conveyancers;(f) The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys;(g) The Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys;(h) The Association of Law Costs Draftsmen;(i) any other body which is a body to which sub-paragraph (3) applies.
	(3) This sub-paragraph applies to—
	(a) a body designated as an authorised body for the purposes of section 27 or 28 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41) (rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation);(b) a body approved under Schedule 9 to that Act (approval of body to grant exemption from prohibition on preparation of probate papers etc);(c) a body prescribed by regulations under section 113 of that Act (administration of oaths and taking of affidavits).
	(4) The Lord Chancellor may make an order under sub-paragraph (1) only if—
	(a) the body to which the order relates has made a recommendation under this section to which was annexed a draft order, and(b) the body to which the order relates consents to the order which is made.
	(5) The Lord Chancellor may make an order under this paragraph only for the purpose of enabling the body to which it relates to do one or more of the following—
	(a) to become a body within sub-paragraph (3);(b) to grant its members rights for the purposes of section 27 or 28 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41), to exempt its members for the purposes of section 55 of that Act or to authorise its members for the purposes of section 113 of that Act;(c) if it is or becomes a designated regulator, to regulate its members more effectively or efficiently;(d) if it is or becomes a designated regulator, to expand the categories of persons who are eligible to be members of the body;(e) to do any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of section 68(3) at a time after paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 comes into force.
	(6) An order under this paragraph may make provision in relation to the body to which the order relates, and members of that body, corresponding to the provision which by virtue of subsection (4) or (5) of section 68 may be made by an order under that section in relation to an approved regulator and persons authorised by that regulator to carry on reserved legal activities or to provide immigration advice or immigration services.
	(7) Any provision made by an order under this paragraph may be expressed to be conditional upon—
	(a) the coming into force of paragraph 1 of Schedule 4; (b) the body to which the order relates being designated by an order under Part 2 of that Schedule as an approved regulator, or by an order under Part 1 of Schedule 10 as a licensing authority, in relation to one or more reserved legal activities specified in the order;(c) the body to which the order relates becoming a designated qualifying regulator under section 86A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33).
	(8) An order under this paragraph may modify provisions made by or under any enactment (including this Act or any Act passed after this Act), prerogative instrument or other instrument or document.
	(9) The powers to make an order conferred by this paragraph are without prejudice to any powers (statutory or non-statutory) which a designated regulator or other body may have apart from this section.
	(10) In this paragraph "member" in relation to a body includes any person who is not a member of the body but who may be subject to disciplinary sanctions for failure to comply with any of its rules.
	A3 (1) This paragraph applies where a body makes a recommendation under paragraph A2.
	(2) The Lord Chancellor must publish a document containing—
	(a) the recommendation, and(b) the draft order annexed to it.
	(3) The document must be accompanied by a notice which states that representations about it may be made to the Lord Chancellor within a specified period.
	(4) The Lord Chancellor must give a copy of the document to the Office of Fair Trading and the Lord Chief Justice, and invite each of them to provide advice on it within that period.
	(5) The Lord Chancellor may give a copy of the document to the Legal Services Consultative Panel or any other person, and invite them to provide advice on it within that period.
	(6) The Lord Chancellor must have regard to any representations and advice duly given.
	(7) If the order which the Lord Chancellor proposes to make differs from the draft order published under sub-paragraph (2), the Lord Chancellor must, before making the order, publish the revised draft order along with a statement detailing the changes made and the reasons for those changes.
	A4 Paragraphs A2 and A3 apply in relation to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as they apply in relation to a designated regulator, but as if in paragraph A2—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (4)(a) the reference to the body to which the order relates were a reference to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal or the Law Society, and(b) for sub-paragraph (5) of that paragraph there were substituted—"(5) The Lord Chancellor may make an order under this paragraph only for the purpose of enabling the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to carry out its role more effectively or efficiently.", and(c) sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) of that paragraph were omitted."
	Schedule 22, page 298, line 29, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Schedule 22, page 299, line 1, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Schedule 22, page 300, line 31, at end insert—
	" ( ) Until the repeal of paragraphs 17 and 19 of Schedule 8 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41) by Schedule 23 to this Act comes into force, those paragraphs have effect as if—
	(a) in paragraph 17 (inadequate professional services: failure to comply with direction), after sub-paragraph (2) there were inserted— "(3) In relation to proceedings before the Discipline and Appeals Committee in respect of such a complaint, the Committee may make such order as they consider fit as to the payment of costs by—(a) the Council;(b) the licensed conveyancer against whom the complaint was made;(c) if the person on whose complaint the proceedings were brought was heard (in person, or through a representative) by the Committee in the course of the proceedings, that person.", and(b) paragraph 19(b) (inadequate professional services: costs) were omitted."
	Schedule 22, page 300, line 31, at end insert—
	"Exercise of Board's functions pending appointment of Chief Executive
	(1) Until the first Chief Executive of the Board is appointed under paragraph 11 of Schedule 1, the Board's functions under—
	(a) Schedule 1,(b) Schedule 15, and(c) paragraph 4(8) of this Schedule,may be exercised by the ordinary members of the Board.
	(2) For that purpose "ordinary member" has the same meaning as in Schedule 1."
	Schedule 22, page 300, line 33, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Schedule 22, page 300, line 36, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Schedule 22, page 300, line 38, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Schedule 22, page 301, line 1, leave out "the membership of the Board is first constituted" and insert "the Chairman of the Board, and at least 7 other ordinary members of the Board (within the meaning of Schedule 1) have been appointed"
	Schedule 22, page 301, line 4, leave out "the membership of the Board is first constituted" and insert "the Chairman of the Board, and at least 7 other ordinary members of the Board (within the meaning of Schedule 1) have been appointed"
	Schedule 22, page 301, line 19, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	Schedule 22, page 301, line 45, at end insert—
	"(1) During the transitional period, the reference to an authorised person in section 1A(d) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (practising certificates: employed solicitors) is to be read as a reference to a person listed in paragraph 6(1), other than a person listed in paragraph (b) or (c) of that paragraph.
	(2) For this purpose "the transitional period" means the period which—
	(a) begins with the day on which section 1A(d) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as inserted by Schedule 16) comes into force, and(b) ends with the day appointed for the coming into force of section 13 (entitlement to carry on a reserved legal activity)."
	Schedule 22, page 301, line 45, at end insert—
	" (1) During the transitional period, section 69 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (action to recover solicitor's costs) has effect as if—
	(a) after subsection (2A)(a) of that section there were inserted— "(aa) in a case where the costs are due to a firm, signed by a partner of the firm, either in his own name or in the name of the firm, or on his behalf by any employee of the firm authorised by him to sign, or", and(b) in subsection (2A)(b), after "paragraph (a)" there were inserted "or (aa)".
	(2) For this purpose "the transitional period" means the period which—
	(a) begins with the day on which subsections (2) to (2F) of that section (as substituted by Schedule 16) come into force, and(b) ends with the day appointed for the coming into force of section 13 (entitlement to carry on a reserved legal activity).
	(3) This paragraph does not apply in relation to section 69 of the Solicitors Act 1974 as it has effect by virtue of paragraph 29 of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985."
	Solicitors Act 1974 (c. 47)"
	Schedule 22, page 302, line 27, leave out "or"
	Schedule 22, page 302, line 28, after "mark" insert "attorney"
	Schedule 22, page 302, line 29, at end insert ", or
	( ) an authorised member of the Association of Law Costs Draftsmen (within the meaning of paragraph 15A of Schedule 5)."
	Schedule 22, page 302, line 35, at end insert—
	"Functions transferred to the Lord Chancellor
	(1) This paragraph applies where, by virtue of an amendment made to an enactment by this Act, a function of the Secretary of State is transferred to the Lord Chancellor.
	(2) In this paragraph such a function is referred to as a "transferred function".
	(3) Any subordinate legislation made by the Secretary of State in exercise of a transferred function is to have effect as if made or done by the Lord Chancellor.
	(4) So far as is appropriate in consequence of the transfer, anything else done by the Secretary of State in exercise of a transferred function is to be treated as if done by the Lord Chancellor."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 23 [Repeals]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 660 to 719:
	Schedule 23, page 303, line 3, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Public Notaries  Act 1801 (c. 79) In section 1, ", or use and exercise the office of a notary, or do any notarial act,". 
			  In section 14, from "proctor" to "any other". 
			 Public Notaries  Act 1843 (c. 90) Section 10." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 303, line 5, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Children and Young  Persons Act 1933 (c. 12) In section 49(11), the definition of "legal representative"." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 303, line 8, column 2, after "2," insert ""Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board." and"
	Schedule 23, page 303, line 9, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Superannuation Act 1972 (c. 11) In Schedule 1, "Employment by the Legal Services Ombudsman" and "The office of the Legal Services Ombudsman". 
			 Poisons Act  1972 (c. 66) In section 9(7), "notwithstanding that he is not of counsel or a solicitor"." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 303, column 2, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
	
		
			  "In section 1A— 
			  (a) "or" at the end of paragraph (b), and 
			  (b) in paragraph (c) "by the Council of the Law Society"." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 304, line 3, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "In section 33(2), "and the rules" to the end." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 304, line 29, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "( ) "duly certificated notary public"," 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 304, line 31, column 2, after "conditions"," insert—
	
		
			  "( ) "replacement date"," 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 304, line 32, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "Section 89(7)." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 304, line 33, after "Schedule 1," insert—
	
		
			  "— 
			  (a) in paragraph 1(1)(h), "sole", and 
			  (b) " 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 304, column 2, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert—
	
		
			  "Schedule 2." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 304, line 36, column 2 at end insert—
	
		
			  "In Schedule 3, paragraph 9." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 304, line 37, column 2, at beginning insert—
	
		
			  "In Part 2 of Schedule 1, "The Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board."" 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 304, line 40, column 2, at beginning insert—
	
		
			  "In Part 2 of Schedule 1, "The Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board."" 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 304, line 42, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74) In Schedule 1A, in Part 2, "The Legal Services Consultative Panel."" 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 305, line 37, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23) Section 4(6)." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 306, line 5, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "In section 22(3)(a) "qualified"." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 306, line 17, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "In section 29(1), "or" at the end of paragraph (b)." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 306, line 18, column 2, leave out "In section 31(2)," and insert—
	
		
			  "In section 31— 
			  (a) in subsection (2)," 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 306, line 19, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  ", and 
			  (b) in subsection (4), "or complaint"." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 306, column 2, leave out line 22 and insert—
	
		
			  "(b) subsection (3)(d)," 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 306, line 25, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "Section 34(2)(c) to (e)." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 306, line 30, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "( ) in the definition of "client", in paragraph (a) "or his firm"," 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 306, line 35, leave out "and 9" and insert ", 9 and 14"
	Schedule 23, page 307, line 4, column 2, leave out ""corporate"" and insert "—
	
		
			  (i) paragraph (b) and the "or" immediately preceding it, 
			  (ii) "corporate", and 
			  (iii) "or application"," 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 307, column 2, leave out lines 8 and 9
	Schedule 23, page 307, leave out line 10
	Schedule 23, page 307, column 2, leave out lines 12 to 16
	Schedule 23, page 307, leave out line 18
	Schedule 23, page 307, line 20, column 2, leave out ", in paragraph (b) "section 34 of the 1974 Act or with","
	Schedule 23, page 307, line 21, column 2, leave out ", and in paragraph (c) "39 or""
	Schedule 23, page 307, line 25, column 2, leave out paragraph (p)
	Schedule 23, page 307, line 31, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "( ) paragraph 20(2)," 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 307, line 33, column 2, leave out "32(2)" and insert "32(1)(b) and (2)"
	Schedule 23, page 308, line 17, column 2, at end insert "(in both places)"
	Schedule 23, page 308, line 21, column 2, leave out paragraph (l)
	Schedule 23, page 308, line 22, at end insert—
	
		
			  "( ) paragraph 15." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 308, line 24, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Social Security Act  1986 (c. 50) In section 56(1), "although not a barrister or solicitor"." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, [Re-tabled as Amendment 689A]
	Schedule 23, page 308, line 36, column 2, at beginning insert—
	
		
			  "Sections 17, 18 and 18A." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 308, line 36, column 2, leave out "26" and insert "29"
	Schedule 23, page 308, line 36, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "Sections 31 and 31A." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 308, line 37, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "In section 53— 
			  (a) subsection (5), and 
			  (b) subsection (9)(e)." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 308, column 2, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert—
	
		
			  "Sections 54 and 55." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 308, column 2, leave out line 41 and insert—
	
		
			  "Sections 68 to 70. 
			  Section 73(5)(d)." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 308, line 42, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "Section 90." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 308, line 43, column 2, leave out "(2) and (3)"
	Schedule 23, page 308, line 46, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "In section 119(1), the definitions of— 
			  (a) "authorised advocate", 
			  (b) "authorised body" and "appropriate authorised body", 
			  (c) "authorised litigator", 
			  (d) "authorised practitioner", 
			  (e) "Consultative Panel", 
			  (f) "duly certificated notary public", 
			  (g) "the general principle", 
			  (h) "qualified person" and 
			  (i) "the statutory objective". 
			  In section 120— 
			  (a) in subsection (4), "26(1), 37(10), 40(1)", and from "paragraph 24" to "Schedule 9", and 
			  (b) subsection (5)." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 308, column 2, leave out lines 47 and 48 and insert—
	
		
			  "Schedules 3 to 7." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 2, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "( ) paragraph 7, 
			  ( ) paragraph 11," 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 2, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "( ) paragraph 13," 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 309, column 2, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert—
	
		
			  "( ) paragraphs 14 to 20, 
			  ( ) paragraph 21(1)(b), and" 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 5, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "Schedule 9." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 10, column 2, leave out "2(5) and insert "2(3) and (5)"
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 10, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "( ) in paragraph 5— 
			  (i) in sub-paragraph (3)(a) and (b), "by virtue of his being a member of that partnership", 
			  (ii) sub-paragraph (4)," 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 309, column 2, leave out lines 1 and 12
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 22, column 2, after "paragraphs" insert "4,"
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 22, column 2, leave out "and 10" and insert ", 10 and 20"
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 23, column 2, after "18" insert—
	
		
			  "— 
			  (a) in paragraph 1(1), ""The Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board"" and ""The Conveyancing Ombudsman"", 
			  (b) paragraph 1(2), and 
			  (c) " 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 23, column 2, after "12," insert "18,"
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 23, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) In section 114(4), ", although not of counsel or a solicitor,"." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 25, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) In section 194(2), ", although not of counsel or a solicitor,". 
			 Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1993 (c. 50) In Schedule 2, paragraph 3." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 29, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Environment Act 1995 (c. 25) In section 54, "although not of counsel or a solicitor"." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 30, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "In Schedule 5, paragraph 67." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 30, at end insert—
	
		
			 "National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39) Section 33(1)(a)." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 31, column 2, at beginning insert—
	
		
			  "Sections 35(2) to (4), 36, 37 and 40 to 42. 
			  In section 44(1), "is employed by"." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 34, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "Section 47." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 35, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "In Schedule 4, paragraph 46. 
			  Schedule 5." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 36, column 2, at end insert ", 5 to 8 and 11"
	Schedule 23, page 309, line 38, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "In Schedule 14, paragraph 14." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 310, line 7, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Trustee Act 2000 (c. 29) In Schedule 2, paragraph 37." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 310, line 8, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "( ) "The Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board."," 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 310, line 10, column 2, after "Commissioner."" insert—
	
		
			  "( ) "The Legal Services Consultative Panel."" 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 310, line 12, column 2, leave out from "paragraph" to end of line 13 and insert "23(2) to (6) and (10)."
	Schedule 23, page 310, line 20, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Natural Environment and  Rural Communities Act 2006 (c. 16) In section 12(2) "even though he is not a barrister or solicitor"." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 310, line 22, at end insert—
	
		
			 "National Health Service  Act 2006 (c. 41) In section 194(4), ", although he is not a barrister or solicitor,". 
			 National Health Service  (Wales) Act 2006 (c. 42) In section 142(4), ", although he is not a barrister or solicitor,"." 
		
	
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 24 [Index of defined expressions]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 720:
	Schedule 24, page 310, line 31, at end insert—
	
		
			 "barrister section 197" 
		
	
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	House adjourned at 10.31 pm.